SRI G SANNAKENCHAPPA v. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI WRIT PETITION No.376/2012 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI G SANNAKENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE G SANNABASAPPA, WORKING AS TASK FORCE COMMANDER O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KRIDL DAVANAGERE & R/AT DOOR NO.774/30, "SIDDHANTHA NILAYA" SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY LAY OUT II STAGE, DAVANAGERE. ( BY SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV., FOR M/S SUBBARAO & CO., ADVS.,) ...PETITIONER AND: 1 THE KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, 2 W.P.NO.376/2012 RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE 3 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS ( BY SRI. G.S.KANNUR, ADV., FOR R1 R2 & 3 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 12.10.07 ISSUED BY R2 VIDE ANNX-H AND QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DT 2.4.08, ISSUED BY R2 VIDE ANNX-K. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Though the petitioner has called in question the order of punishment and order of appellate authority and reviewing authority, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rules provide review of the order passed by the appellate authority and it is statutory remedy available to the petitioner and accordingly, he had filed statutory review petition, but the respondent No.2-Reviewing authority has dismissed the review petition only on the ground that review petition is filed after six months. Learned counsel for the 3 W.P.NO.376/2012 petitioner further submits that, review petition is filed within six months.

#2. Even otherwise, if the review petition is filed, if there is delay, review petition should have been considered if there is sufficient cause shown for the delay and thereafter, it should have dispose of the review petition. Without considering the same, review petition was dismissed only on the ground of barred by limitation. In my opinion, order of review petition passed by Reviewing authority dated 21/24.06.2011 produced at Annexure-P is liable to be quashed.

#3. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order produced at Annexure-P dated 21/24.06.2011 issued by respondent No.3 is quashed. Reviewing authority is directed to consider the review petition, on merit, if it is filed in time. If the review petition is filed after six months and if sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner, same may be considered and thereafter, consider the matter on merit. 4 W.P.NO.376/2012 All the contentions raised in this writ petition are kept open. PMR* Sd/- JUDGE