Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Sri. Shambulingaiah
2023 Latest Caselaw 3688 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB
                                                         WA No.152 of 2021




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
                                        PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                              AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                         WRIT APPEAL NO.152 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

               BETWEEN:

               1.   KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
Digitally           TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC)
signed by           REGINAL WORKSHOP
RUPA V              KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060
Location:           JEREOM REPRESENTED BY
High Court          THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
of Karnataka        KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
                    K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
                    BENGALURU - 560 027.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L. ADV.,)

               AND:

               1.   SRI. SHAMBULINGAIAH
                    S/O SRI. LINGAIAH
                    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                    R/O NO.110, 3RD CROSS
                    3RD MAIN ROAD
                    DEEPANJALI NAGARA
                    BANGALORE - 560 0226.

               2.   THE COMMISSIONER
                    KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
                    SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION
                    14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING
                    NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
                    BANGALORE - 560 001.
                            -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB
                                         WA No.152 of 2021




3.   THE SECRETARY
     KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
     SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION
     14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(R2 & R3 SERVED
V/O DTD:07.06.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
                           ---
     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
17/12/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO.25167/2016 (GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
SAID WRIT PETITION, AS PRAYED FOR.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

None for the respondent though served.

This intra Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, takes an exception to

an order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

appellant challenging the order dated 21.04.2016

passed by the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and

NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

Scheduled Tribes Commission, Bengaluru (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Commission') has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondent No.1 is an employee of

the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').

Respondent No.1 was transferred by an order dated

16.11.2010 from Bangalore division to Ramanagaram

division. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer, it

appears that respondent No.1 approached the

Commission. In the aforesaid proceeding, the

Commission issued a bailable warrant to the Managing

Director of the Corporation on 21.04.2016.

3. The Corporation challenged the aforesaid order

dated 21.04.2016 in a writ petition. The learned Single

Judge, by an order dated 17.12.2020, dismissed the

writ petition on the ground that the Managing Director

NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

of the Corporation cannot delegate the powers to the

Chief Law Officer to file the petition with regard to

challenge to impugned order dated 21.04.2016.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant at length. None has appeared on behalf of the

respondent though served. It is pertinent to note that

the authority of Chief Law Officer who represent the

Managing Director of the Corporation was not

challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned

Single Judge erred in holding that the Chief Law Officer

could not represent the Managing Director and

challenge the order dated 21.04.2016. It is stated on

behalf of the Corporation that the Divisional Manager,

through his advocate, shall regularly appear in the

proceeding before the Commission which is still

pending.

NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

5. For the aforementioned reasons, order dated

17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.25126/2016 is hereby quashed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory

application is also disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV