Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkata Durga Prasad Kunchala vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2025

Author: Krishna S Dixit

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                                               -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB
                                                         WP No. 1596 of 2025
                                                     C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                            PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                                              AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1596 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
                                              C/W
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 4805 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)


                      IN WP No. 1596/2025

                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. VENKATA DURGA PRASAD KUNCHALA
                      S/O LATE R. RAMAIAH
                      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                      WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
                      CUM MEMBER SECRETARY
                      SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD
                      PLANNING AUTHORITY (STRRPA)
Digitally signed by   NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, LRDE BUILDING
SHAKAMBARI
                      BENGALURU-560 052
Location: High
Court of              (PREVIOUSLY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
Karnataka
                      JOINT DIRECTOR
                      BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
                      TASK FORCE (BMTF)
                      AND
                      RESIDING AT NO 601/1, 2ND MAIN
                      2ND CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, III STAGE
                      RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
                      BENGALURU-560 098
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, FOR
                          SRI. VISHWANATHA BHAT A, ADVOCATES)
                          -2-
                                  NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB
                                   WP No. 1596 of 2025
                               C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025



AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560 001

2.   THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU METROPOLITAN REGIONAL
     DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA)
     NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD
     LRDE BUILDING
     BENGALURU-560 052
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI. VIVKE REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
    SRI. K.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 13.01.2025 IN A.No-5134/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND TO
ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
KSAT AT BENGALURU AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE APPLICANT AS JOINT
DIRECTOR CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF STRRPA BENGALURU
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.


IN WP NO. 4805/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. VENKATA DURGA PRASAD KUNCHALA
S/O LATE R. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
                           -3-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB
                                     WP No. 1596 of 2025
                                 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025



CUM MEMBER SECRETARY
SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD
PLANNING AUTHORITY (STRRPA)
NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, LRDE BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 052
(PREVIOUSLY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JOINT DIRECTOR
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TASK FORCE (BMTF) AND
RESIDING AT NO 601/1, 2ND MAIN
2ND CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, III STAGE
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 098
                                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
                                       ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 IN A.No-
5388/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO ALLOW THE SAID
APPLICATION ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT
BENGALURU AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER    ORDER   OR   DIRECTION    DIRECTING   THE
RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE APPLICANT AS JOINT
DIRECTOR CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF STRRPA
BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                               -4-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB
                                          WP No. 1596 of 2025
                                      C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025



     THESE      PETITIONS,   COMING    ON   FOR   PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
             and
             HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

These two writ petitions are filed by the same

individual seeking the following relieves in both the writ

petitions:

Prayer in WP.1596/2025:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 in A No.5134/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru vide Annexure-'D' and to allow the said Application on the file of the Hon'ble KSAT at Bengaluru.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondents to continue the applicant as Joint Director-cum-Member Secretary of STRRPA, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity; and

(iii)Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of this petition in the interest of justice and equity.

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

Prayer in WP.4805/2025:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 in A No.5388/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru vide Annexure-B and to allow the said Application on the file of the Hon'ble KSAT at Bengaluru.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondent to continue the Applicant as Joint director-cum-Member Secretary of STRRPA, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity; and

(iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of this petition in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions

under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by

assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order

dated 13.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 passed by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in

Application Nos.5134/2024 and 5388/2024, whereby the

petitioner challenges the order dated 08.11.2024 issued

by the second respondent, relieving him from the post of

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

Joint Director-Cum-Member Secretary of the Satellite

town, Ring Road Planning Authority (STRRPA) and

repatriating him to his Parent Department.

Factual matrix

3. The petitioner is a post graduate in Urban and

Regional Planning and a holder of a Post-Graduate

Diploma in Geographic Information System. He entered

the service of the Government of Karnataka as Assistant

Director of Town Planning on 25.09.2004. He specifically

asserts that by dint of his meritorious service, he was

promoted as Deputy Director of Town and Country

Planning in the month of July 2011 and subsequently

promoted as Joint Director of Town and Country Planning

in the month of September 2015.

4. It is stated, that on 17.02.2023, the first

respondent i.e., State Government, in exercise of its

power under Section 4-C (3)(ii) of the Karnataka Town

and Country Planning Act, 1961, ("the Act"), issued an

order transferring and posting him as a Joint Director-

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

cum-Member Secretary of STRRPA, consequent upon the

transfer of the erstwhile incumbent i.e., one Sri.

Gopalakrishna, to some other place.

5. It is further stated that, the said STRRPA was

constituted vide notification dated 24.06.2016 under

Section 4-B (1) of the Act, carving out certain planning

areas from the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region

Development Authority (BMRDA), thereby severing any

administrative control of BMRDA over the said post. It is

alleged that, however, in a wholly arbitrary and ultra virus

action, the second respondent (Metropolitan

Commissioner, BMRDA), issued the impugned order dated

08.11.2024 purportedly relieving the petitioner from

STRRPA and repatriating him to his Parent Department.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the

KSAT, which, vide the impugned order dismissed his

application compelling him to file these writ petitions.

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

Arguments of the petitioner's counsel

6. Following are the vehement submissions of

learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner:

Jurisdictional infirmity in the repatriation order:

• The second respondent lacked competence to

issue the order dated 08.11.2024, as the post

of Joint Director-cum-Member Secretary,

STRRPA, should transferred out of BMRDA's

administrative purview vide Government Order

dated 20.07.2021.

• Section 4-D(2) of the Act vests exclusive power

in the State Government to alter the term of

office of a Member Secretary.

• The KSAT erred in law by upholding the second

respondent's order, despite patent lack of

jurisdiction.

Statutory tenure protection under extant Rules

• Rule 4 of the Karnataka Planning Authority

Rules, 1965, prescribes a 3 year term for

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

members of a Planning Authority, commencing

from the date of appointment.

• The petitioner's tenure, which commenced on

17.02.2023, could only be curtailed by the

Government and not by the second respondent.

• The KSAT failed to appreciate this statutory

safeguard, rendering its order perverse and

incompetent.

Non application of binding precedent

• The petitioner relied on Dr.Patil Shashi V/s.

State of Karnataka (WP.104846/2022),

wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

held that transfer cannot be a substitute for

disciplinary action in cases of alleged

misconduct.

• The KSAT mechanically referred this precedent

but failed to apply its ratio, thereby committed

a gross error of law.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

Malafide and arbitrary action

• The repatriation order was issued without any

show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing,

violating the principles of natural justice.

• The KSAT has overlooked this fatal flaw,

despite the petitioner's unblemished service

record.

Arguments of counsel for the respondents:

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,

sought to justify KSAT's Order on the following grounds:

• The second respondent, as a relieving authority

of the petitioner was competent to repatriate

him.

• The petitioner's subsequent posting (pursuant

to the impugned order), extinguished his right

to challenge.

• The Government Order dated 17.02.2023 did

not exquisitely designate the petitioner as

Member Secretary under Section 4(C)(3)(ii).

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions of both sides. Meticulously perused the

records.

Analysis and findings:

I. Jurisdictional competence of the second

respondent

9. The core issue is whether the second

respondent (BMRDA Commissioner) had the authority to

relieve the petitioner from STRRPA?

10. A plain reading of the Government Order

dated 20.07.2021 reveals that, the post of Joint Director

was permanently shifted from BMRDA to STRRPA.

Consequently, the second respondent ceases to have any

administrative control over the said post. Section 4-D(2)

of the Act unequivocally states as under:

"(2) The Chairman and members of a Planning Authority constituted under Section 4-C, except those nominated by local authorities shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government.

The representative of a local authority who is a

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

member of that authority shall cease to be a member of the Planning Authority when he ceases to be a member of the local authority concerned."

11. Thus, the power to alter the petitioner's

tenure clearly vested solely with the Government, and not

with the second respondent.

12. The finding of the KSAT, that the second

respondent could repatriate the petitioner is contrary to

statutory provisions and hence unsustainable in law.

Merely because, the petitioner has joined his next post and

hence, cannot challenge the impugned order of his

repatriation is untenable. The KSAT has not applied its

judicious mind with regard to the said aspect.

13. Sofaras statutory tenure under Rule 4 is

concerned, this Rule 4 of the Karnataka Town Planning

Authority Rules, 1965, mandates that:

"The term of office of the chairman and members of the Planning Authority shall be 3 years and shall commence from the date of appointment".

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

14. As per the facts pleaded by the petitioner,

his letter of appointment is dated 17.02.2023, and it did

not stipulate any truncated tenure. Hence, as per the

submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner

was and is legally entitled to hold office till 16.02.2006,

unless validly curtailed by the Government. The KSAT has

failed to consider this mandatory rule which vitiates its

order.

15. There is a violation of judicial precedent. In

Dr.Patil Shashi supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has held that "Transfer cannot be a punitive

measure. If allegations of misconduct exist, disciplinary

proceedings must be initiated. The omission on the part of

the KSAT to apply this binding precedent despite

acknowledging it constitutes a grave error of law".

16. Complaints under protest does not waive

rights as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in

catena of judgments. The KSAT erroneously has held that,

the petitioner's acceptance of a subsequent posting (under

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

protest) defeated his challenge and this finding is not

sustainable. The Apex Court in the Tamil Nadu

Agricultural University and Anr.etc. v/s. R.Agila etc,

(arising out of SLP (C) no.13075/2022) in para 4 of the

decision observed as under:

"4. Under such terms and conditions of service, an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer".

(Underlined by us)

17. Upon careful examination of the entire

factual matrix and legal frame work, several critical

aspects emerge. First, the Government Order dated

20.07.2021 effected a complete transfer of the concerned

post from BMRDA to STRRPA. This transfer was not

merely administrative but had substantive legal

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

consequences, completely divesting BMRDA of any

authority over the position. Secondly, the statutory

scheme under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning

Act, 1961, and the rules framed there under create a

specific tenure protection for appointed members, which

cannot be arbitrarily curtailed. Thirdly, the principles of

natural justice demand that any action affecting a

Government servant's tenure must follow due process,

which is consequentially absent in the present case.

18. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from

multiple legal infirmities. It fails to properly interpret the

statutory provisions governing the petitioner's

appointment and tenure. It incorrectly upheld the

jurisdiction of the second respondent, despite clear

evidence of transfer of administrative control. The

Tribunal neglected to properly apply binding judicial

precedents that are directly relevant to the case. These

cumulative errors render the Tribunal's Order legally

unsustainable. In that view of the matter and the above

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB

analysis, Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed and the

impugned order is liable to be set aside by declaring that,

the order dated 8.11.2024 issued by the second

respondent is declared ultra virus and without legal effect.

Consequentially, the respondents are directed to

reinstate/continue the petitioner as Joint Director-cum-

Member Secretary of STRRPA and permit him to complete

his full statutory tenure of 3 years from the original date of

appointment.

19. Resultantly, We pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 27.01.2025 in

application No.5388/2024 on the file of

KSAT, Bengaluru, is set aside. Likewise,

the impugned orders dated 13.01.2024

passed by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal in application

No.5134/2024 and 5388/2024 are set