Tag Archives: #Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Deco Equipments Pvt Ltd AND The State of Karnataka & others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33180 OF 2016

Date of Order: 29-08-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE  S Sunil Dutt Yadav

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that if the award for land acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is issued after the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, the market value of the acquired land should be assessed according to the guidelines outlined in Section 26 of the 2013 Act.

FACTS

In this case, a single bench of S Sunil Dutt Yadav considered a petition filed by M/s Deco Equipments Pvt Ltd. The petitioner challenged the validity of an Award dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer of Mysore District. The case revolved around the acquisition of land and determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The acquisition process began with a Preliminary Notification issued on 15.03.2008, followed by a Final Notification on 05.06.2009 under Sections 4(1), 6, and 17(1) of the 1894 Act. The petitioner contested the validity of these notifications, and after some legal proceedings, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. During the course of the proceedings, the 2013 Act came into effect.

The petitioner ultimately sought compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award determining compensation based on the sale consideration from a Sale Deed dated 21.04.2007 and using norms outlined in the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013.

The key legal issue was whether the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act could be subjected to the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act, especially considering the changes introduced by Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The bench examined the relevant provisions, specifically focusing on Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. It noted that if no award had been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act would apply. In this context, the court concluded that even when acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act but the award was being sought after the 2013 Act came into force, the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act would be applicable.

The court observed that the petitioner had settled for compensation under the 2013 Act during the proceedings, even though they had initially challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh Award. The compensation was to be recalculated in accordance with the principles discussed in the judgment, and the officer was instructed to adhere to the guidelines of Section 26 and other applicable rules under the 2013 Act.

In essence, the court’s decision highlighted the applicability of the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act in cases where the award was sought after the 2013 Act came into force, even if the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

 

Case Title: Naveen Kumar H N & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4979 OF 2023 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6588 OF 2023

Date of order: 03.08.2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

 

INTRODUCTION

Karnataka High Court Affirms Validity of 01.02.2023 Government Circular Regarding Reservation Application under Article 371J for Kalyana Karnataka Region”

FACTS

In 2020, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) issued a recruitment notification for the positions of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and Junior Engineers. The notification included provisions related to the recruitment of local candidates from the Kalyana Karnataka Region, in accordance with Article 371J of the Indian Constitution. This article aimed to ensure development and provide incentives for education and employment in the underdeveloped Hyderabad-Karnataka region.

A new circular issued in 2022 reversed the previous circulars and changed the recruitment process. This new circular stated that local candidates from the Kalyana Karnataka Region should be considered first for recruitment against non-local cadre positions. If unsuccessful in securing these positions, their candidature should then be considered for local cadre posts. Non-local cadre applicants challenged this, arguing that altering the selection process after candidates had exercised their options was against established legal principles.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

Justice N S Sanjay Gowda highlighted that the main objective of introducing special provisions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was to acknowledge its underdevelopment and provide incentives for education and employment. The judge ruled in favor of the state’s circular, stating that it aligned with the constitutional intent of Article 371J.

The court noted that while Article 371J aimed to provide local candidates with reserved posts, it did not intend to restrict them from applying for other positions in the state. It held that the state government could not limit the right of local candidates to apply for non-local cadre positions by mandating option exercises.

The court emphasized that candidates choosing non-local cadre posts might have reduced chances of employment compared to candidates from more developed regions. It found that issuing separate notifications for local and non-local cadre positions better aligned with constitutional intent.

Addressing the argument of changing rules midway, the court highlighted that essential eligibility and selection criteria remained consistent throughout the recruitment process. It aimed to uphold opportunities for both local and non-local candidates without adversely affecting either.

The judgment acknowledged that the reversal of decisions by the State Government had caused the present confusion and issued specific directions to address the situation. These directions included allowing local candidates to opt for the local cadre and ensuring vacancies arising from this choice were offered to non-local candidates on the basis of merit.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions while affirming the state’s circular and providing directions to ensure fairness in recruitment while considering the constitutional intent behind Article 371J.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Case Title: A S MALLIKARJUNASWAMY, AND STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23695 OF 2022

Date of Order: 22-08-2023

CORAM : HON’BLE JUSTICE  KRISHNA S DIXIT

INTRODUCTION

The decision made by the State Information Commissioner to dismiss the application of a college professor who was inquiring about his colleague’s service record details has been overturned by the Karnataka High Court.

FACTS

In this case, a college professor named A S Mallikarjunaswamy filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court after his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) was rejected by the State Information Commissioner. The Commissioner had rejected his RTI application based on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) states that there is no obligation to provide information that relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would invade an individual’s privacy, unless there is a larger public interest that justifies the disclosure.

Mallikarjunaswamy’s RTI application sought service record details of his colleague. He argued that he needed this information to address his grievances related to his own service, such as matters of confirmation, seniority, promotion, etc. He contended that the information he was seeking was essential for him to structure his claims in service law matters

COURT’S ANALYSIS

Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court allowed Mallikarjunaswamy’s petition and set aside the decision of the State Information Commissioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner was not a stranger to the institution in question; he was a lecturer who had been working there for years. The court noted that in matters of service grievances, especially those related to confirmation, seniority, and promotion, employees need access to full service particulars of their colleagues working under the same employer.

The court ruled that the rejection of Mallikarjunaswamy’s RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) was not applicable in this case. It stated that denying him the information he had requested would effectively deny him the opportunity to avail benefits under a specific Government Order that prescribed parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions related to reservation.

As a result, the court directed the Principal of Marimallapas PU College in Mysuru to provide the service particulars of the individuals mentioned in Mallikarjunaswamy’s RTI application, along with copies of relevant records, within a period of three weeks. The court also imposed a penalty for non-compliance, stating that for each day of delay beyond the given period, the respondent would have to pay Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner. Additionally, the Principal was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 towards expenses.

In essence, the court’s decision emphasized the importance of providing relevant service details to employees within the same institution for the proper resolution of service-related grievances, and it underlined that the denial of such information must be carefully weighed against the larger public interest and the individual’s rights.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Case Title: Dr Lakhsmi P Gowda AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 12859/2023

Date of Order: 10-08-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE G NARENDAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE  VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court intervened to assist a 23-year-old student who, while completing the online registration for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-PG (NEET-PG), mistakenly omitted selecting her caste within the OBC category reservation.

FACTS

In this case, Dr. Lakshmi P Gowda filed a petition before a division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, seeking a correction in her application/score card for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) exam. She had inadvertently marked herself under the General Merit Category (GMC) instead of the Other Backward Class (OBC) category during the online registration process. The petitioner, belonging to the Vokkaliga caste, which is categorized as OBC in Karnataka, realized the error upon reviewing her application and immediately requested correction. When her request was not granted, she approached the court for relief.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court, after considering the facts and arguments presented, ruled in favor of Dr. Lakshmi P Gowda. The court held that mere inadvertent errors made during the application process should not be used to deny a candidate the opportunity they are otherwise entitled to based on merit. The court directed the National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences to allow the correction of her category entry from General to OBC in Column No.7 of the application/score card. Furthermore, the court ordered the insertion of her name in the order of merit for consideration under the OBC quota.

The court rejected the respondents’ argument that allowing such corrections would result in a flood of similar petitions. It stated that presuming widespread errors without evidence would be unfounded. The court clarified that the petitioner was not seeking inclusion in multiple reservation categories, but rather requesting rightful consideration within the OBC quota.

The court also addressed concerns about altering the merit list and cited the objective of the NEET process – to ensure meritorious candidates are not denied opportunities. It noted that punishing candidates for approaching the court by placing them at the bottom of the merit list would not be just. The court emphasized that NEET aims to provide a fair platform for candidates to showcase their merit and abilities.

Considering that there was ample time left in the counseling process, the court found it equitable to grant the petitioner the opportunity for correction and inclusion in the merit list. It pointed out that her inclusion would not harm other candidates in the list, as the merit list’s structure depends on both the number of candidates and the cutoff marks set by the authority.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petitioner’s plea, asserting that this ruling should not be treated as a precedent. The case highlights the court’s focus on ensuring fairness and justice in the NEET process, while also emphasizing the importance of correcting inadvertent errors without punishing diligent candidates seeking redressal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Case Title: Saibanna s/o Ningappa Natikar AND The Union of India & Others

Case No: Writ Petition no. 3297 of 2013

Date of Order: 17-08-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE G NARENDAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE C M POONACHA

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has overturned the death sentence given to a 70-year-old individual convicted of murder. Instead, they have changed the punishment to life imprisonment. This decision comes after the person served 30 years in prison, during which almost 20 years were spent in isolation.

FACTS

In 1988, the petitioner turned himself in to the police, admitting that he had killed his wife, Malkawwa. He claimed he did so because she was having an affair with another man, which deeply disturbed him. He was arrested and taken into custody, where he met PW-1, Dattu, who offered his daughter’s hand in marriage once the petitioner was released.

In July 1988, the accused was granted bail and later married Nagamma, the daughter of PW-1. They had a child together. However, on February 2, 1993, the petitioner was found guilty and received a life imprisonment sentence. He was released on parole in August 1994 for one month.

On September 13, 1994, Nagamma and their daughter Vijayalakshmi were found murdered. The petitioner was discovered with serious injuries, including a severe head wound. After recovering from the injuries, he was arrested for the murders.

Despite the fact that Section 303 IPC had been declared unconstitutional by a Constitutional Bench in Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983), the trial court still convicted the petitioner under this section. He was sentenced to death.

The conviction was upheld by the High Court and later confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005. Subsequently, in 2005, the petitioner submitted a Mercy Petition, but it was mistakenly sent to the Union Government instead of the State Governor, who was the appropriate authority to consider it. The mercy petition wasn’t reviewed until January 2007 and was ultimately rejected in February 2007. Another mercy petition was submitted in the same month, which was also denied in 2013.

 COURT’S JUDGEMENT

Upon reviewing the records, the court found multiple instances of unexplained delays in the process of considering the petitioner’s mercy petition. These delays were attributed to various governmental bodies, including the State Government, the Governor’s Secretariat, and the Karnataka government. The court calculated a cumulative delay of over 7 years and 8 months in the consideration and disposal of the petitioner’s mercy petition. This prolonged delay was deemed to have violated the petitioner’s rights and justified their request for a commutation of the death sentence. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had been held in solitary confinement for around 16 years and was suffering from physical and psychological issues due to this confinement. Consequently, the court partially granted the petitioner’s plea.

A panel consisting of Justice G Narendar and Justice C M Poonacha has granted approval to the legal request submitted by Saibanna Ningappa Natikar on two main grounds. These grounds include an extensive delay of 7 years and 8 months in addressing his plea for clemency and his unjustified confinement in isolation, which lacked legal authorization.

The panel stated that after evaluating all the details and circumstances, especially considering the petitioner’s enduring imprisonment of over 30 years, justice would be better served by altering the initially given death penalty to a sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner is also granted the freedom to submit a request for remission at their discretion.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma