Skip to content


Parvathagowda Basanagowda Patil Vs. Sri Veeramaheswara Vidya Vardhaka Sangha and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 13851 of 1984
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR316
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantParvathagowda Basanagowda Patil
RespondentSri Veeramaheswara Vidya Vardhaka Sangha and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.M. Muchchandi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM. Rama Bhat, Adv.
DispositionPetition rejected
Excerpt:
.....is not appropriate for this court to test under article 226 of the constitution whether discretion exercised by the tribunal would not have been the discretion that this court would have exercised on the same facts and circumstances interim relief is always a matter of discretion and as long as there is evidence that the tribunal has acted on material before it and the discretion has been exercised reasonably in favour of the one or the other party, there will be no cause for interference. that this court might have taken a different view will not entitle the petitioner for any relief against the interim order. - section 100: [n. kumar, j] election to state legislative council -election petition challenging election on grounds that names of persons who do not possess..........kuppelur. that order of suspension has been challenged by the petitioned before the educational appellate tribunal, dharwar, in miscellaneous appeal (kpei) no. 11 of 1984.whilepresenting the appeal, the petitioner also filed i.a. no. 1 for stay of the suspension order. notice of the appeal and thei.a. was served on the respondents and after contest i.a. no. i came to be rejected. aggrieved by the order made by the educational appellate tribunal in i.a. no. i, the petitioner* w.p. no. 13851 of 1984 dated 27th august 1984has approached this court under article 226 of the constitution, inter alia contending that the order is made by the learned district judge without applying his mind, without considering the evidence and without noticing that the order of suspension had not obtained the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

1. The Petitioner is the Principal of Shri G.B. Shankar Rao Composite Junior College, Kudapali, Hirekerur Taluk, Dharwad District. He was suspended by the Management of the College expressed through an order made by the 3rd Respondent Sri Mahadevappa Basappa Kuppelur. That order of suspension has been challenged by the Petitioned before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwar, in Miscellaneous Appeal (KPEI) No. 11 of 1984.Whilepresenting the appeal, the Petitioner also filed I.A. No. 1 for stay of the suspension order. Notice of the appeal and theI.A. was served on the Respondents and after contest I.A. No. I came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the order made by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in I.A. No. I, the Petitioner* W.P. No. 13851 of 1984 Dated 27th August 1984has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia contending that the order is made by the learned District Judge without applying his mind, without considering the evidence and without noticing that the order of suspension had not obtained the approval of the Joint Director of Public Instructions.I have perused the impugned order. It indicates that these very grounds were urged before the 4th Respondent Educational Appellate Tribunal and each one of those grounds have been considered by him and disposed of by a rather lengthy order. In that circum-stance, it is not appropriate for this Court to test under Article 226 of the Constitution whether discretion exercised by the Tribunal would not have been the discretion that this Court would have exercised on the same facts and circumstances. Interim relief is always a matter ofdiscretion and as long as there is evidence that the Tribunal has acted on material before it and the discretion has been exercised reasonably in favour of the one or the other party, there will be no cause for interference. That this Court might have taken a different view will not entitle the Petitioner for any relief against the interim order.

Therefore this Petition is rejected.


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