Karnataka High Court
Sri Anuwanth Singh vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23137-DB
RP No. 242 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REVIEW PETITION NO. 242 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.13448 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI ANUWANTH SINGH,
S/O SRI MALLAPPA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
K.S.B.C.L WHITEFIELD-BUD-5,
BENGALURU - 560091,
(AS SHOWN IN CAUSE TITLE OF THE KAT
APPLICATION)
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
RANGE NO 24, ASHOKNAGARA-BUD-4
Digitally BENGALURU 560043.
signed by C
HONNUR SAB ...PETITIONER
Location:
HIGH COURT (BY SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
OF
KARNATAKA SRI PRASHANTH H S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE),
REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23137-DB
RP No. 242 of 2024
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK,
BMTC BUILDING,
SHANTINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560027.
3. SRI ARUN PRASAD,
S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
RANGE NO 24, ASHOKNAGARA-BUD-4,
(AS SHOWN IN CAUSE TITLE OF THE KAT
APPLICATION)
R/AT NO 164, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
HEALTH LAYOUT,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
V/O/DT: 25.06.2024 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO:
i) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2024 PASSED IN
W.P. NO. 13448/2024, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DIVISION
BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND RESTORE THE SAID
WRIT PETITION TO THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT BY
ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION.
ii) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER/S AS THIS
HONBLE COURT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE IN THE ATTENDANT
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO SECURE THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ANU SIVARAMAN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:23137-DB
RP No. 242 of 2024
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
review petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. In view of the nature of the review sought for,
notice to respondent No.3 in this Review Petition is
dispensed with.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the review petitioner that there is an error
apparent in the judgment dated 04.06.2024 inasmuch as
it is stated that Annexure-A3 which specifically refers to
order of the Election Commissioner dated 21.12.2023 was
earlier in point of time than Annexure-A2 order.
4. It is submitted that both Annexures-A3 and A2
orders were issued on the same day and the finding that
Annexure-A3 was an earlier order and was therefore not
justified.
NC: 2024:KHC:23137-DB
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
in this Writ Petition however submits that this specifically
was the case of the applicant before the Tribunal and was
also supported by reply statement filed on behalf of
respondent No.3.
6. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that both the orders of transfer i.e., Annexures-
A2 and A3 were dated 31.01.2024. The question whether
Annexure-A3 preceded Annexure-A2 would be of no
relevance since as a matter of fact, the Tribunal had held
that both orders were issued in pursuance to the directions
issued by the Election Commissioner and were
necessitated only on account of Elections. This aspect
having been specifically noticed by the Tribunal as well as
this Court. We are therefore of the opinion that the
question whether Annexure-A3 preceded Annexure-A2 or
not would not be relevant. We make it clear that any
reference as to the chronological order of Annexures-A2
and A3 in paragraph No.10 would be irrelevant to the facts
NC: 2024:KHC:23137-DB
of the case and therefore the said sentence stands
deleted.
7. It is further stated that in eighth line of
paragraph No.14, wherein it is stated that "the petitioner
had not completed his normal tenure at the earlier date of
posting on 31.01.2024", we agree that it is to be corrected
and read as "private respondent had not completed his
normal tenure in the earlier place of posting".
8. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Review Petition is allowed as indicated
above.
(ii) However, it is made clear that the errors
make no difference to the outcome of the
Writ Petition that the judgment shall stand
upheld in all other respects.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
GVP
