- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14551-DB WA No. 462 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S.G. SAVITHA D/O DR. S.V. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS JOINT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-2 SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE …APPELLANT (BY MS. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (K) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14551-DB WA No. 462 of 2025 DATED 06.02.2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3470/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Smt. Veena J. Kamath for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for the respondents. 2. By the order dated 06.02.2025, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, who is a government servant, has the benefit of availing separate forum for redressal of the grievances raised in the petition which is the tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Learned Single Judge reasoned that when an alternative remedy is provided to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14551-DB WA No. 462 of 2025 petitioner, the court would not entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The prayer which was advanced by the petitioner before learned Single Judge was to direct respondent No.2-the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (K), Bengaluru, to consider her representations dated 10.06.2024, 20.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 25.10.2024 with a further direction to disburse salary for the period from December 2022 to April 2023 with increment. 4. Taking exception to the view taken by learned Single Judge that the remedy for the appellant-petitioner would lie before the tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it was submitted that under Section 19 of the Act, which deals with applications to tribunals, it is clearly provided that a person aggrieved by 'any order' pertaining to any matter may make an application to the tribunal for redressal of the grievances. It was submitted that in the case of the appellant, there is no 'order' to be taken to the tribunal. What the appellant has prayed was to require respondent No.2-authority to consider her representations. 5. The submission could be well countenanced. When there is no order proposed to be impugned, the jurisdiction of the tribunal - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14551-DB WA No. 462 of 2025 would not be invokable. As is clear from the language of Section 19 of the Act, there must be an order and that a person aggrieved by "any order" pertaining to any matter, may make an application. Since there is no order in the present case, learned Single Judge misdirected himself in asking the appellant to opt for the remedy before the tribunal. 6. In the aforesaid view, the order of learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2025 is set aside. 7. The present Appeal is allowed by directing respondent No.2- the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (K), Bengaluru, to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 10.06.2024, 20.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 25.10.2024 and take decision thereon within eight weeks from the date of service of copy of this order. 8. This court has not gone into the merits of the case of the appellant nor has expressed any opinion on merits. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted to point out that one of the grounds of the appellant seeking the relief of payment of salary and other benefits of House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance is based on the condition that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14551-DB WA No. 462 of 2025 similarly situated persons are granted the benefits. It was submitted that in the representations, the said aspects are also pleaded. 10. It is observed in above respect that the competent authority shall give due regard to the aforesaid aspects while considering and deciding the said representations on their merits. 11. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. In view of disposal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22