Karnataka High Court
Siddesh Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29468-DB
RP No. 304 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REVIEW PETITION NO. 304 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.10630 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SIDDESH NAIK,
S/O. LATER KRISHNA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
KUDLAGI RANGE, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-583135,
UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS INSPECTOR
OF EXCISE, MADIHALLI CHECK POST,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 527,
RESIDING AT NO.23, NEAR PRASANNA GANAPATHY
Digitally TEMPLE, MUNICIPAL COLONY,
signed by
PRAMILA G V CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
Location: ...PETITIONER
HIGH COURT (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE A/W
OF SRI VINAYAKA S PANDIT, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECTRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE), 2ND FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING,
K. H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29468-DB
RP No. 304 of 2024
3. SRI. BASAVARAJU,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
MADIHALLI CHECK POST,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 527.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4,
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER
XLVII RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO:
A. REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.10630/2024 (ANNEXURE-A), IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY, AND /OR,
B. CONSEQUENTLY, TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
N.10630/2024 (S-KSAT )FILED BY THE PETITIONER, AND
/OR
C. PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COST OF
THIS REVIEW PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29468-DB
RP No. 304 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review
petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for
private respondent.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the review petitioner that the present Writ Petition was heard
along with another Writ Petition and there are some errors
which have occurred in the narration of the facts.
3. It is further contended that it was the specific
contention of the petitioner that the order dated 18.12.2023
modifying the earlier order of transfer had specifically referred
to the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for
short 'Tribunal'). It is submitted that there was no such order of
the Tribunal as on the relevant date and that the Tribunal had
only issued notice in the application in question. It is therefore
contended that there was absolutely no reason for modification
of the earlier order of transfer dated 01.12.2023.
NC: 2024:KHC:29468-DB
4. It is further contended that the specific contention
raised by the writ petitioner that there was no identification of
posts and that without such identification, the order of
modification could not have been passed, has not been
considered by this Court.
5. It is further contended that the judgment records
that the writ petitioner was a person belonging to Hyderabad-
Karnataka region while as a matter of fact, the writ petitioner
was a person belonging to the residual cadre. It is submitted
that these errors vitiate the judgment and review of the
judgment and rehearing of the Writ Petition is required.
6. Learned Government Advocate submits that apart
from the factual errors in the recording that the writ petitioner
belongs to Hyderabad-Karnataka region which was only an
error, all other issues have been considered in the judgment
and the Review Petition can be allowed to the limited extent of
correcting the error as pointed out in the Review Petition with
regard to the recording of the fact that the petitioner actually is
a person belonging to the residual cadre, while the private
respondent belongs to Hyderabad-Karnataka region.
NC: 2024:KHC:29468-DB
7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the reason for the modification of the transfer order
by order dated 18.12.2023 has been specifically considered by
this Court in the judgment under review. It is clearly held that
the modification was effected in view of the fact that the
private respondent is a person belonging to Hyderabad-
Karnataka region and that the posting was granted by order
dated 01.12.2023 without noticing the said fact. Further,
contention that specific posts had not been identified in terms
of Article 371J of the Constitution of India has also been
considered by this Court and it was found that the Karnataka
Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad
Karnataka Region), Order stood amended by the amendment
order of 2013, dated 20.01.2014, providing for identification of
number of posts to be assigned to the local cadre. This Court in
the judgment had held that the Government orders specifically
provides for identification of number of posts to be assigned to
the local cadre as well as the residual cadre in Hyderabad-
Karnataka region.
8. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the contention that the arguments raised by the
NC: 2024:KHC:29468-DB
petitioner had not been considered in the judgment, cannot be
accepted. We are of the opinion that the grounds for the
modification having been specifically considered by the
judgment, the judgment does not require a review on that
account
9. However, the judgment requires a correction in so far
as the statements in paragraphs No.3, 4 and 5 as well as in
paragraph No.14 that the petitioner is a person belonging to
Hyderabad-Karnataka region, requires to be corrected and read
as the private respondent is a person belonging to Hyderabad-
Karnataka region. The judgment is reviewed to that limited
extent.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
