G. Mohan Kumar vs The Chief Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 11876 Kant

                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                             AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

          W.P.No.24322/2021(GM-RES-PIL)

BETWEEN:

G. MOHAN KUMAR
ADVOCATE
S/O LATE GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.14/2, 5TH CROSS, LAYOUT
NAGASHETTAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 094.                ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI X.M. JOSEPH, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE CHIEF SECRETARY
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
       DEPT. OF PERSONNEL &
       ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
       (SERVICES-1)
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.     SHRI M.B. RAJESH GOWDA IAS
       COMMISSIONER OF BANGALORE
       DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                               2

      5TH MAIN ROAD
      KUMARA PARK WEST
      BENGALURU - 560 020.                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADV., FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANANDA, ADV., FOR R-3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE OF
WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED QUA-WARANTO TO SET ASIDE
ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO e-DPAR 195 SAS 2021 DATED
30.04.2021 APPOINTING RESPONDENT NO-3 AS THE
COMMISSIONER OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

In this public interest litigation, petitioner, who is

an advocate by avocation seeks a writ of quo warranto to

set aside the order dated 30.04.2021, by which

respondent no.3 was appointed as the Commissioner of

Bangalore Development Authority. The petitioner has

questioned the validity of the appointment of respondent

no.3 inter alia on the ground that respondent no.3 is not

a Super Time Scale Officer.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well

as the learned Counsel for respondent no.3 have stated

before this Court that by order dated 26.08.2022,

respondent no.3 has been transferred and he no longer

holds the post of Commissioner, Bangalore Development

Authority. It is, therefore, urged that the issue involved

in this petition has been rendered academic. In support

of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

BHOLANATH MUKHERJEE & OTHERS VS RAMAKRISHNA

MISSION VIVEKANANDA CENTENARY COLLEGE &

OTHERS1.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of

with a direction to the State Government to appoint a

Super Time Scale Officer only as the Commissioner of

Bangalore Development Authority in future.

4. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the

subsequent event viz., transfer of respondent no.3, he no

longer holds the post of Commissioner, Bangalore

Development Authority. The issue involved in this petition

is, therefore, rendered academic and it is not necessary

for this Court to examine the same. Since respondent

(2011)5 SCC 464

no.3 is no longer the Commissioner of Bangalore

Development Authority, it would be an exercise in futility

to examine the merits of the controversy.

5. For the aforementioned reasons and in view of

the subsequent event, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK