Karnataka High Court
Mahadevi W/O Ramu Hanchinal vs Shakuntala W/O Ramu @ Ramappa Hanchinal on 5 January, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:296
WP No. 66733 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 66733 OF 2011 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVI W/O RAMU HANCHINAL,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. APMC QUARTERS, MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT,
NOW R/AT NEAR K.E.B., BASAVAN-BAGEWADI,
DIST. BIJAPUR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHAKUNTALA W/O RAMU @ RAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. APMC QUARTERS, MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING,
RAJ BHAVANA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
BIJAPUR, DIST. BIJAPUR, BY ITS SECRETARY.
E Date:
2024.01.09
11:35:47
+0530
4. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,
MAHALINGPUR, DIST. BAGALKOT, BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI AND
SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R1;
SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. B. ANAND SHETTY AND
SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. M.C. BASAREDDY, ADOVDATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:296
WP No. 66733 of 2011
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER
NO.DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀȪÀiÁE/50/¹§âA¢-2(J¯ï)2002 DATED 22.08.2011
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is challenging an order of
appointment issued in favour of the respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner claims to be the lawful wedded wife
of the deceased Ramu Hanchinal, who was working in the
APMC. The 1st respondent also claims to the lawful wedded
wife of the deceased Ramu Hanchinal.
3. In this regard, the petitioner had instituted two
suits, one for injunction in OS.No.282/2022 and another suit
in O.S.No.271/2002 seeking for declaration that she was
equally entitled to receive all the service benefits of her
husband-Ramu Hanchinal along with the 1st respondent
herein.
4. The suit for injunction was decreed and the 1st
respondent herein was injuncted from claiming the service
benefits and funds of the deceased Ramu Hanchinal. The suit
filed for declaration in OS.No.271/2002 was also decreed in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:296
part and it was declared that the petitioner was equally
entitled to receive his service benefit accrued due to the
death of Ramu Hanchinal along with the 1st respondent
herein and the children of Ramu Hanchinal i.e. Basavaraj and
Bhaghyashree.
5. The 1st respondent being aggrieved by the said
decree preferred an appeal in RA.144/2004. This appeal was
allowed by judgment dated 27.8.2010 and the judgment of
trial Court passed in O.S.No.285/2002 i.e. the suit filed by
the petitioner for declaration was set aside and the suit was
dismissed.
6. Thereafter, the APMC has proceeded to appoint
the 1st respondent on compassionate ground by an order
dated 22.08.2011, which is the subject matter of the writ
petition.
7. It is also stated that as against the decree passed
in R.A.No.144/2004 i.e. appeal filed by the first respondent,
the second appeal has been instituted before this Court in
RSA.6104/2010 and the same is pending consideration. It is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:296
also stated that the second appeal in RSA.No.100833/2018
is pending consideration as against the decree of injunction.
8. In my view having regard to the fact that the 1st
respondent was appointed on compassionate ground way
back in the year 2012, i.e. more than 12 years ago, it would
not be appropriate to permit the petitioner to challenge the
said order, more so when the suit filed by the petitioner for
declaration has been dismissed in the year 2010.
9. It is to be noticed here that this writ petition was
filed in year 2011 when the petitioner was 46 years old.
Presently, the petitioner would be aged about 58 years and
the question of her seeking compassionate appointment at
this age would not arise. It would also not been equitable to
disturb the appointment, which has been made nearly 13
years ago in favour of 1st respondent, after 12 years.
10. In the light of the above, the writ petition
challenging the compassionate appointment of the 1st
respondent is dismissed.
11. It is however made clear that nothing said in this
order shall be construed as an opinion being rendered on the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:296
merits of the claim of the petitioner as regards the estate of
the deceased Ramu Hanchinal or her marriage with Ramu
Hanchinal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
CT:BCK
