Karnataka High Court
Sri Santhosh Malaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2023
Bench: G.Narendar, C.M. Poonacha
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 12432 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SANTOSH MALAJI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. MALLAPPA M MALAJI,
Digitally signed by WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
C HONNUR SAB
Location: High VISVESVARAYA TRADE
Court of PROMOTION CENTRE (VTPC)
Karnataka
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE, VTPC BUILDING,
BESIDES MEUSEM,
KASTURBA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KUM. PRIYANKA. G. DHAMMANAGI
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O GURUPADAYYA B DHAMMANAGI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA (KUM)
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE, NO 49, 3RD FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN.
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
3. SMT. MANJULA M.V
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. CHANDRABABU C,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
KARNTAKA UDYOG MITRA (KUM)
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE, NO 49, 3RD FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN.
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 001
4. SRI MADHU V.S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. DR. V.N SATHYANARAYANA REDDY
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA (KUM)
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE, NO 49, 3RD FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN.
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
5. SRI. VENKATESH Y.K
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,
CHAMRAJANAGAR- 571 442.
6. SRI. BHARGAV. K
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY M,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
INVEST KARNATAKA FORUM (IKF)
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE, NO 49, 3RD FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN.
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE, VIKASASOUDHA,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE,
NO 49, 2ND FLOOR, 'KHANIJA BHAVAN',
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
3. SRI. G.G. RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O. LATE GURUSIDDAIAH,
W/A. DEPIUTY DIRECTOR,
INSUSTRIAL CENTRE, HASSAN,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
R/O. K.G.ROAD,
UDAYAGIRI EXTENSION,
HASSA-573201.
4. SMT. MEGHALA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D/O. SRI. SUBRAMANI,
W/A. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE
CTI BUILDING, SAYYAJI ROAD,
MYSURU-570001.
5. SRI. K.S.RAVI PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. K.S.S1IDDARAMAIAH,
W/A. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE,
CHIKKAMANGALURU-577101.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
6. SRI. K.A.RAJENDRA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O. SRI.K.V.ANANTH PADMANABHAN,
W/A DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, INDUSTRIAL DIVISION,
CHAMARAJNAGAR, CHAMARAJNAGAR-571313.
7. SRI. VEERESH NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. THAKRYA NAIK,
W/A. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
8. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEUR REHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. MOHD. QALEEUR REHMAN,
W/A. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION,
BANGALAORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560091.
9. SRI. N. RAVICHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION,
KOLAR-517247.
10. SRI. VISHOK DIXIT,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. SRI SHRIPAD DIXIT,
W/A. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION, KARWAR-581301.
11. SMT. SUPRIYA S
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. S.RAJENDRA,
W/A. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA UDYOGA MITHRA,
BANGALORE-560001.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
12. SRI. RAJKUMAR PATIL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. BASAVANTH RAO PATIL,
W/A ASST. DIRECTOR,
KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES,
C/O. DIC CAMPUS,
NAVBAD, BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. S.B.MUKANAPPA, ADV FOR R5,R7,R9 AND R11.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE BY
ISSUANCE OF CERTIORARI THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10/02/2023 AND 26/5/2023, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN ITS RA.
Nos. 146-155/2021 C/W. RA No. 139/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G
AND H RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned senior counsel Sri M.S. Bhagwat
for the petitioners, learned counsel Sri S.B. Mukkannappa
and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State.
2. The petitioners are before this Court in view of
some strange orders passed by the Tribunal under the
garb of a review application i.e. R.A. No.39/2022 and R.A.
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
Nos.146-155/2021 arising out of Application Nos.2427-
2433/2021 which came to be disposed off on 12.11.2021.
3. By the said orders, the Tribunal was pleased to
hold that the amendments introduced by the State,
without prior publication and without inviting objections
was contrary to law. More particularly, it has been held
that the same is contrary to the law laid down by this
Court in Sri M.V. Dixit & Others vs. State of Karnataka &
Others1 and on the said basis, the application came to be
allowed.
4. It appears that, the State i.e. the Department
of Industries & Commerce and the Commissioner,
Industrial Development & Director of Industries &
Commerce preferred the review application No.39/2022
praying for a review and with this review application
started this saga. The said review application came to be
accompanied by another application by some of the peers
ILR 2004 KAR 3802
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
of the applicants which review application was numbered
as R.A. Nos.146-155/2021.
5. The review applications were taken up together
for consideration which in our considered opinion was the
first error committed by the Tribunal. The review by the
State and the review by the persons who are not parties to
the proceedings could not have been treated similarly as
both were dissimilarly placed. The State was a party and
a party who was fully heard and thereafter, orders have
been passed on the application. On the other hand, the
review applicants in the second application were neither
parties nor were they heard by the Tribunal. Despite this
glaring fact, we are unable to comprehend as to how the
Tribunal deemed it fit to hear both the applications
together.
6. Be that as it may, the Bench, which earlier
heard the application, took up the review applications and
the same resulted in a split verdict with the Administrative
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
Member holding that review application is liable to be
dismissed on the ground that no error apparent on the
face of the record are pointed out. On the other hand, the
Judicial Member opined otherwise and ordered the review
application. In view of the split verdict, the review
applications were thereafter placed before the third
Member and the third Member in our considered opinion
has transgressed the law evolved and laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court insofar as it pertains to consideration
of a review application or review petition.
7. We have perused the judgment of the third
Member and the dissenting Judicial Member and we find
that both the Judicial Members have unfortunately acted
as Courts of appeals and have literally sat in judgment and
rendered findings on the merits of the order. The grounds
of attack would prima-facie demonstrate that the grounds
urged in support of the review application are in the
nature of grounds of appeal, which in our considered
opinion is impermissible. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
latest judgment has examined the law in this regard and
reiterated the scope of a review petition in the case of S.
Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others2.
The findings recorded and the principles laid down in paras
16 to 41. The same would clearly demonstrate that the
order allowing the review application is per-se
unsustainable and warrants interference at the hands of
this Court.
8. In view of the above position, we have no
hesitation in setting at naught the orders passed by the
Tribunal on the review application. Accordingly, the orders
passed on the review applications, i.e. R.A. No.39/2022
and R.A. Nos.146-155/2021, are hereby set-aside. The
matters are remitted back to the Tribunal to be heard and
disposed of by separate orders and in accordance with
law. While disposing of the review applications, the
Tribunal shall bear in mind the law as settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court noted supra in this order and dispose
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24056-DB
WP No. 12432 of 2023
of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within an outer limit of one month.
9. While hearing the second review application by
the private respondents, the Tribunal shall bear in mind
the law settled in Rajeev Kumars & Another vs. Hemraj
Singh Chauhan & Others3.
10. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal without
waiting for any notice on 24.07.2023.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CHS
(2010) 4 SCC 554
