Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32776 (KAR)

H S VAMANA MURTHY v. KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

WP/25162/2024 · 2025-04-08

Krishna S Dixit, Ramachandra D Huddar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14897-DB WP No. 25162 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25162 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: H S VAMANA MURTHY, S/O LATE H N SUNDARA ACHARAYA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SURVEYOR THE TAHSILDAR, MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE (D K) R/AT NO.SY.81, RR NO.AEH 2491, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, P.C. EXTENSION, KOLAR-563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.H S VAMANA MURTHY.,PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KANDAYA BHAVAN, 7TH FLOOR, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHREEDHAR B G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF “MANDAMUS” COMMAND/COMPEL THE TRIBUNAL TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION WHICH IS POSSESS BUT DECLINING TO EXERCISE, FOR DISPOSING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MA No. 01/2023 WHICH IS BEFORE IT AS ANNEXURE ‘B’ AND II) PASS SUCH ORDERS AND Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14897-DB WP No. 25162 of 2024 ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, 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 KRISHNA S DIXIT) Petitioner-party-in-person, who has suffered penalty order, was before the Tribunal by moving Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.01/2023. The said Application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Petitioner’s successive Miscellaneous Applications were also dismissed. Petitioner failed to pay the costs. 2. Petitioner-party-in-person, argues that it is the right of a citizen to move any number of Miscellaneous Applications and that the Tribunal should pass order on their merits. It is too broad a proposition to agree with. A discretion or jurisdiction cannot be abused by making - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14897-DB WP No. 25162 of 2024 successive applications of the kind. Records reveal such a culpable conduct on the part of petitioner. In view of the above, petition is dismissed, costs having reluctantly been made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38