Skip to content


The Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Another Vs. Raghavendra and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 52484-52583 of 2016 (S-Cat)
Judge
AppellantThe Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Another
RespondentRaghavendra and Others
Excerpt:
.....administrative tribunal, bangalore bench, bangalore vide annexure- c.) jayant patel, j. 1. the present petitions are directed against the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the tribunal whereby for the reasons recorded in the order, the tribunal has allowed the application. 2. when we have taken up the matter, the learned for the petitioners has submitted that the present matter is covered by the earlier decision of this court dated 17.10.2016 in w.a.no.52474/2016 and he prays that similar order may be passed. 3. we may record that this court in the above said order dated 17.10.2016 has observed thus: "the present petitions are directed against the order passed by the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal" for the sake of brevity) whereby the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 08.06.2016 [In O.A.Nos.170/1358-1457/2015] Passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore Vide Annexure- C.)

Jayant Patel, J.

1. The present petitions are directed against the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal whereby for the reasons recorded in the order, the Tribunal has allowed the application.

2. When we have taken up the matter, the learned for the petitioners has submitted that the present matter is covered by the earlier decision of this Court dated 17.10.2016 in W.A.No.52474/2016 and he prays that similar order may be passed.

3. We may record that this Court in the above said order dated 17.10.2016 has observed thus:

"The present petitions are directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of brevity) whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the applications.

2. We have heard Mr.M.Vasudeva Rao, learned SCGSC appearing for the petitioners.

3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. it appeals that there is no dispute on the aspect that the similar orders were passed by the Tribunal which were carried before this Court in W.P.Nos.2531-2540/ 2016 and those petitions came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2016. Not only that, but thereafter this Court in W.P.Nos.2671- 83/2016, had also an occasion to examine other similar orders passed by the Tribunal dated 18.08.2015 in O.A.Nos.766-788/2015 and this Court vide order dated 25.04.2016 did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the petitions were dismissed.

4. We may record that this Court in the last order dated 25.04.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.2671-83/2016 had observed thus:

"All the petitions are directed against order dated 18/08/2015, whereby the Tribunal has allowed O.A.Nos. 766-788/2015, with a direction to pay the consequential benefits.

2. We have heard Mr.M. Vasudeva Rao, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners who fairly conceded that similar order was passed by the Tribunal, which was challenged before this Court in the proceedings in W.P.Nos.2531- 2540/2016 and this court, vide order dated 01/04/2016 for reasons recorded therein, did not interfere with the same. He, further, submitted that subsequently also, similar matters came to be filed, in W.P.Nos. 11069- 078/2016, which were dismissed vide order dated 06/04/2016 and he fairly conceded that the matters are covered by the above decisions.

3. We may record that in the order dated 01/04/2016, in W.P.Nos.2531- 2540/2016, this court has observed thus:

5. A query was put to learned counsel for the petitioners in order to find out as to whether the Tribunals concerned, namely Madras Bench as well as the Bombay Bench, had undertaken to exercise quashing of the order of the authority and thereafter granted relief or not. In response thereto, learned counsel fairly submitted that even in those proceedings also the impugned orders/ decisions were not quashed but reliefs were granted. Therefore, in our view, the present case cannot be said to be differently situated. Further, the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that the decision of the Bombay Bench was carried before the Bombay High Court and was confirmed. Further, the Apex Court has not interfered with the said decision when the matter was carried in SLP. In these circumstances, we find that the contention raised, that the Tribunal without quashing the order of the authority could not have granted relief cannot be accepted.

6. Apart from the above, it is hardly required to be stated that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be limited to the perverse exercise of discretion over the jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record. If the Tribunal has erred by its earlier decision, which was before the Bombay High Court and no interference by the Apex Court was made, it cannot be said that the exercise of power by the Tribunal in Bengaluru is erroneous on the face of the record much less no error has been said to have been committed.

7. In these circumstances, no case is made out for interference by this Court and all the petitions are dismissed. "

As the fact situation are the same, the present petitions are also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners however submitted that against the subsequent order passed by this Court, the matters are carried before the Apex Court by preferring SLP and hence the order of the Tribunal, even if not interfered with may be made subject to the proceedings of the said SLP.

6. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of in view of the above referred earlier decision of this Court. Hence, no case is made out for interference. However, it is observed that in the event any different view is taken by the Apex Court in the above referred SLPs, the rights of the party shall stand covered in accordance with law."

As the fact situation are similar, the present petitions are also disposed of, in terms of the aforesaid reasons recorded in the above referred order. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, I.A.No. 1/2016 does not survive for consideration.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //