M. Ramesh Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority and anr.

M. Ramesh vs The Bangalore Development Authority and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Nov 30, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/384325

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/384325
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: S.R. Nayak and ;H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 30, 2004
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 4041 of 2004
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- Admission to Post Graduate Medical & Dental Courses: [Mohan Shantanagoudar,J] Entrance Test - Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection & Admission to Post-Graduate Medical & Dental Degree & Diploma Courses Rules, 2006, Rules 3, 10 & 2 - Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, Rule 61 - Entrance Test for a...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 69(2); Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 - Rule 6(3); Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Ramesh

Advocate S.S. Guttal, Adv.

Respondent

The Bangalore Development Authority and anr.

Legal References

Acts: Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 69(2); Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 - Rule 6(3); Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: ILR2005KAR18; 2005(1)KarLJ211

Excerpt

- admission to post graduate medical & dental courses: [mohan shantanagoudar,j] entrance test - karnataka conduct of entrance test for selection & admission to post-graduate medical & dental degree & diploma courses rules, 2006, rules 3, 10 & 2 - karnataka civil services rules, 1958, rule 61 - entrance test for admission of candidates - merit list allowing in-service candidates for counseling as per merit list or according to service seniority petitioners applied for entrance test merit list prepared based on performance in examination petitioners secured 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank -not allowed to participate in counselling as per their merit - authorities informed that they will be allowed to participate only after exhausting candidates who have completed five years of service, and four years slab though they are below in rank in merit list as the petitioners have completed 3 years of service - action of authorities in giving preference based on service seniority challenged sought counseling as per single merit list held, state in its wisdom thought that candidates who have passed entrance examination, candidates who have completed 5 years should be given preference to persons who have completed 4 years and persons who have completed 4 years services should be given preference to persons who have completed 3 years service. court does not find any illegality in government order. rules of conduct of entrance test of 2006 and rules of karnataka civil services rules operate simultaneously and have to be harmoniously constructed. object appears to give preference to seniors, juniors not get effected, inasmuch as, they may get seat under in-service quota in coming years. such a procedure will not violate the principles of law. - in conclusion, we dismiss the writ appeal, both on merit as well as on the ground of limitation......not mandatory.3. the argument with regard to the above relief of declaration, if we go by the order of the learned single judge, does not seem to have been advanced before the learned single judge for consideration. be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that, that part of sub-rule (3) of rule 6 of the rules is mandatory in nature and no discretion is vested in the bangalore development authority either to forfeit or to grant exemption from forfeiture. the words 'the deposit of 25% made by the auction purchaser shall be liable to be forfeited to the authority', does not leave any doubt in our mind that in the contingency envisaged in the first part of sub-rule (3), the bangalore development authority is legally bound to forfeit the deposit of 25% made by the auction purchaser and it has no discretion not to forfeit the said deposit.4. since the action of the bangalore development authority impugned in the writ petition is in conformity with the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 6 of the rules, the order of the learned single judge is justified. there is no warrant for our interference.in conclusion, we dismiss the writ appeal, both on merit as well as on the ground of limitation.

Full Judgment

S.R. Nayak, J.

1. There is a delay of 217 days in preferring the appeal. Hence the appellant has filed I.A. I of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the LA. The explanation offered in para 4 of the affidavit is self-serving and could hardly constitute a sufficient cause for condoning enormous delay. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal also.

2. In the writ petition, the action of the Bangalore Development Authority in forfeiting the amount in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short, the 'Rules') was questioned. The appellant-petitioner while seeking quashing of the order of the Bangalore Development Authority marked as Annexure-J under which the amount was forfeited, also prayed for a declaration that Rule 6(3) of the Rules is procedural and not mandatory.

3. The argument with regard to the above relief of declaration, if we go by the order of the learned Single Judge, does not seem to have been advanced before the learned Single Judge for consideration. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that, that part of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules is mandatory in nature and no discretion is vested in the Bangalore Development Authority either to forfeit or to grant exemption from forfeiture. The words 'the deposit of 25% made by the auction purchaser shall be liable to be forfeited to the authority', does not leave any doubt in our mind that in the contingency envisaged in the first part of Sub-rule (3), the Bangalore Development Authority is legally bound to forfeit the deposit of 25% made by the auction purchaser and it has no discretion not to forfeit the said deposit.

4. Since the action of the Bangalore Development Authority impugned in the writ petition is in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules, the order of the learned Single Judge is justified. There is no warrant for our interference.

In conclusion, we dismiss the writ appeal, both on merit as well as on the ground of limitation.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2004 Same Parties M. Ramesh vs The Bangalore Development Authority and anr. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge S.R. Nayak and ;H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ. Acts & Sections Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 69(2); B...

Constitution