Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri. C. Mallesh on 27 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB
RP No. 148 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REVIEW PETITION NO. 148 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR OF
Digitally signed
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
by
CHANNEGOWDA
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
PREMA NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
Location: High
Court of NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
Karnataka
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572214
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB
RP No. 148 of 2022
AND:
1. SRI. C. MALLESH
S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS HEAD MASTER
KANAKADASA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
HULIYAR,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
AND R/AT. SHIVA NILAYA
OPP. TO SUB-INSPECTOR QUARTERS
VIJAYANAGAR,
HULIYAR
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214
2. SRI. HUCHEERAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WORKING AS HEAD MASTER
SRI. SIDDARAMESHWARA LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
YALANADU,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
AND R/AT. KENKERE VILLAGE
BARADHALAPALA,
KENKERE POST
HULIYAR, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214
3. THE SECRETARY
KANAKADASA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
HULIYAR,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 218
4. THE SECRETARY
SRI. SIDDARAMESHWARA LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
YALANADU,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB
RP No. 148 of 2022
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 218
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ N., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R4 - SERVED)
THE GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS
FILED THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO
(a) TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 09.08.2021
IN WRIT APPEAL No.63/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This review petition is filed seeking review of the
judgment in W.A.No.63/2021.
2. Heard the learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the review petitioners.
NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB
3. It is contended by the learned Additional
Government Advocate that the writ petition came to be
allowed by the judgment dated 05.07.2018. It is
submitted that the writ petition was part of a batch of
nearly hundred writ petitions and as such, there occurred
some delay in filing the appeal. It is therefore contended
that since the other appeals from the common judgment
are pending, the judgement may be reviewed and the
delay may be condoned, so that the matter can be
considered along with the connected cases.
4. We notice the contention that there was a
proper explanation for the delay and that there are several
other appeals pending, had all been raised before the
Bench and that the aspects have been specifically
considered as well. The reasons stated by the appellants
for seeking condonation of delay of 597 days was
specifically considered by the Bench and it was found that
there was absolutely no reasons stated for condoning the
delay of 597 days.
NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB
5. It was also noticed that the connected matters
had been filed without delay and had been admitted by a
co-equal Bench of the Court without any delay having
been occasioned. It was after considering these aspects
and referring to the case laws on the point of explanation
as to delay, the Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeal
on delay.
6. Though the learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that the delay is to be condoned and the
matter is to be heard along with the connected cases,
absolutely no reason whatsoever has been stated to justify
an interference with the judgment under review in the
review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of the
record or any error at all as has been pointed out.
7. We also notice that dismissal of the appeal is
limited to the parties to the appeal alone and the
questions of law have been left open to be decided in the
batch of the appeals. We find absolutely no sustainable
NC: 2025:KHC:3612-DB
grounds raised for reviewing the judgment. The review
petition therefore fails and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
PN
