K.V. Reddappa Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Bangalore and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
high court act - section 4 - lapses - appellant sought to set aside order passed in writ petition - court held - although, conduct of appellant was not praiseworthy, court think that he was advised by his legal advisor for approaching high court - moreover, government was at fault in keeping revisional application pending for more than two years - order awarding costs was set aside - cost was made easy - appeals allowed in part. paras 9, 10, 11, 12 (prayer: these writ appeals are filed under section 4 of the high court act, praying to set aside the order passed in writ petition nos.11886-11887/2013 dated 12.6.2013. 1. these are appeals against the judgment and order dated june 12, 2013, allowing the writ petitions with costs. 2. the appellant was appointed as a dealer of a ration shop. there were certain allegations against, him which resulted into an enquiry. the enquiry revealed some lapses on the part of the appellant. the deputy commissioner of the district concerned cancelled the license of the appellant. the appellant was aggrieved and preferred a departmental appeal before the commissioner, department of food and civil supplies. the commissioner affirmed the order of the deputy commissioner and dismissed the appeal. 3. a revisional application was filed before the government. the revisional application was pending. there was some delay in disposal of the revisional application. 4. the writ petitioner was advised to approach this court with an application under article 226 of the constitution of india. the writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated february 22, 2010. 5. when the revisional application was taken up by the secretary, department of food and supplies, the appellant was present, but he did not point out to the said authority that the order impugned in the revisional application has been affirmed by this court. 6. we are informed that the revisional authority has allowed the revisional application and set aside the order of cancellation. 7. in the background, some villagers approached this court pointing out such suppression of fact. the hon'ble single judge was justified in holding that the appellant should not have suppressed the fact that the order impugned in the revision has been affirmed by this court. consequently, the writ petitions were allowed. the order of the revisional authority was set aside with costs of rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only. 8. although, the conduct of the appellant was not praiseworthy, we think that he was advised by his legal advisor for approaching the high court. 9. moreover, the government was at fault in keeping the revisional application pending for more than two years. therefore, the order awarding costs is set aside. the cost is made easy. 10. the appeals are allowed in part. 11. in view of disposal of these writ appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, disposed of. 12. we make no order as to costs.