Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Honnayya (H.) Vs. State of Mysore

Honnayya (H.) vs State of Mysore

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jan 09, 1969
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/371516

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 1466 of 1966
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 226; [Anand Byrareddy, J] Establishment of petrol bunk Prescription of distance of 300 meters between two adjacent fuel stations Held, The prescription is in respect of fuel filling stations situated adjacent to each other and not to stations which are on opposite sides of road. The...

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections
Mysore Civil Services Rules - Rule 212

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Honnayya (H.)

Respondent

State of Mysore

Legal References

Acts
Mysore Civil Services Rules - Rule 212
Reported In
(1970)ILLJ539Kant

Excerpt

- constitution of india article 226; [anand byrareddy, j] establishment of petrol bunk prescription of distance of 300 meters between two adjacent fuel stations held, the prescription is in respect of fuel filling stations situated adjacent to each other and not to stations which are on opposite sides of road. there is no minimum distance between such stations on opposite sides of road, prescribed. proposed fuel station of respondent and existing fuel station of petitioner were on either side of a high way. prohibition of distance between two adjoining stations would not apply. - it is an objective fact which has got to be established like any other fact......the powers of the government under rule 212 of the mysore civil services rules, which reads : 'government may make such reduction as it may think fit in the amount of the pension of the government servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory.' 2. it is common ground that no notice was given to the petitioner nor was he provided with any opportunity otherwise to show cause against the order being passed. 3. apart from the merits of the opinion on which we need not say anything, the only legal defence sought to be made out on behalf of the state is that the order being an administrative order, the petitioner was not entitled to previous notice or to an opportunity to show cause against the same. 4. we do not think that the defence can be sustained at all. before the government can exercise the power to reduce the amount of the pension, the reason stated therefor, viz., that the service of the government servant in question has not been thoroughly satisfactory, must be established. it is not a mere matter of subjective satisfaction on the part of whoever takes the responsibility for making the order. it is an objective fact which has got to be established like any other fact. it is equally clear that an order under the rule adversely affects the government servant in respect of whom the same is made and involves consequences in the shape of pecuniary loss. 5. that in the cases of orders of this type there exists a duty to act judicially and to observe the rules of natural justice even if the rule in question does not itself in express terms provide therefor, is the legal position as declared by the supreme court in state of orissa v. dr. (miss) binapani dei and others [1967 - ii l.l.j. 266] and gopalakrishna nayudu (m.) v. state of madhya pradesh [1968 - ii l.l.j. 125]. 6. we, therefore, quash the impugned order of the government reducing the pension of the petitioner. the petitioner is entitled to his costs of this petition from the state government......

Full Judgment

ORDER

Narayana Pal, J.

1. The petitioner impugns an order reducing his pension by 33 1/2 per cent passed by the State Government, a copy whereof has been produced as Ex. B. The order is passed in exercise of the powers of the Government under rule 212 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, which reads :

'Government may make such reduction as it may think fit in the amount of the pension of the Government servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory.'

2. It is common ground that no notice was given to the petitioner nor was he provided with any opportunity otherwise to show cause against the order being passed.

3. Apart from the merits of the opinion on which we need not say anything, the only legal defence sought to be made out on behalf of the State is that the order being an administrative order, the petitioner was not entitled to previous notice or to an opportunity to show cause against the same.

4. We do not think that the defence can be sustained at all. Before the Government can exercise the power to reduce the amount of the pension, the reason stated therefor, viz., that the service of the Government servant in question has not been thoroughly satisfactory, must be established. It is not a mere matter of subjective satisfaction on the part of whoever takes the responsibility for making the order. It is an objective fact which has got to be established like any other fact. It is equally clear that an order under the rule adversely affects the Government servant in respect of whom the same is made and involves consequences in the shape of pecuniary loss.

5. That in the cases of orders of this type there exists a duty to act judicially and to observe the rules of natural justice even if the rule in question does not itself in express terms provide therefor, is the legal position as declared by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others [1967 - II L.L.J. 266] and Gopalakrishna Nayudu (M.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968 - II L.L.J. 125].

6. We, therefore, quash the impugned order of the Government reducing the pension of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to his costs of this petition from the State Government. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial