T.S. Puradappa and ors. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 149; [ram mohan reddy, j] compensation - claimants were passengers in the goods carriage and not loaders appeal against fastening liability on the insurance company held, the motor vehicle in question, indisputably a goods carriage, meant for carrying goods and not passengers in which the 1st respondent /claimant travelled and sustained injuries. it is for the insured owner of the vehicle to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant / insurer. orderram mohan reddy, j.1. state common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision-making, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.2. petitioners serve the respondent-karnataka housing board as assistant revenue officers entrusted with the performance of the duties of a competent authority pursuant to the notification dated 20-8-1992 annexure-a of the state government. the term 'competent authority' defined under section 2(f) of the karnataka housing board act, 1962 (for short, 'act') means, any person authorised by the state government by notification to perform the functions of the competent authority under chapter vi, in such area as may be specified by the notification. chapter vi of the act provides for power to evict persons from board premises. petitioners, aggrieved by the notification dated 1-12-2009 annexure-e of the housing board and the notification dated 10-12-2009 annexure-g of the state government entrusting the assistant executive engineers of the karnataka housing board to perform the functions of the competent authority under the act, have presented these petitions.3. the main thrust of the case of the petitioners as aired by their learned counsel is that the assistant executive engineers do not possess either the required qualification or expertise, which the petitioners possess, in the matter of eviction of persons from board premises. according to the learned counsel, the assistant revenue officers have the required knowledge and experience while the assistant executive engineers have knowledge only with regard to aspects of construction of building and not the procedure relating to eviction of persons from board premises.4. the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, in the circumstances, in my opinion, cannot be countenanced, i say so because, the petitioners hold the post of assistant revenue officers in the respondent-karnataka housing board and are also authorised to perform the functions of competent authority as provided under chapter vi of the act, section 2(f) of the act makes it mandatory for the state government to authorised 'any person', by notification, to perform the functions of the competent authority. therefore, the state government having exercised the said power issued the notification annexure-g, authorising the assistant executive engineers of the respondent karnataka housing board, to perform the functions of 'competent authority'. such an exercise of power, cannot be said to suffer from either lack of or want of jurisdiction of the state government. the word 'any person' as set out in section 2(f) of the act makes it abundantly clear that it is for the state to authorise any person working in the karnataka housing board to perform such functions. moreover, it is the exclusive domain of the karnataka housing board as to what steps it must take for improving the efficiency of the administration and being the preserve of the employer, the power of judicial review cannot be exercised. in fact, the petitioners have not shown that the action of the state in issuing the notification annexure-g, is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or that it is patently arbitrary or vitiated due to mala fides. in the circumstances, the writ petitions are without merit and are accordingly, rejected.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. State common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision-making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.

2. Petitioners serve the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board as Assistant Revenue Officers entrusted with the performance of the duties of a Competent Authority pursuant to the notification dated 20-8-1992 Annexure-A of the State Government. The term 'Competent Authority' defined under Section 2(f) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 (for short, 'Act') means, any person authorised by the State Government by notification to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under Chapter VI, in such area as may be specified by the notification. Chapter VI of the Act provides for power to evict persons from Board premises. Petitioners, aggrieved by the notification dated 1-12-2009 Annexure-E of the Housing Board and the notification dated 10-12-2009 Annexure-G of the State Government entrusting the Assistant Executive Engineers of the Karnataka Housing Board to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the Act, have presented these petitions.

3. The main thrust of the case of the petitioners as aired by their learned Counsel is that the Assistant Executive Engineers do not possess either the required qualification or expertise, which the petitioners possess, in the matter of eviction of persons from Board premises. According to the learned Counsel, the Assistant Revenue Officers have the required knowledge and experience while the Assistant Executive Engineers have knowledge only with regard to aspects of construction of building and not the procedure relating to eviction of persons from Board premises.

4. The contentions advanced by the learned Counsel, in the circumstances, in my opinion, cannot be countenanced, I say so because, the petitioners hold the post of Assistant Revenue Officers in the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board and are also authorised to perform the functions of Competent Authority as provided under Chapter VI of the Act, Section 2(f) of the Act makes it mandatory for the State Government to authorised 'any person', by notification, to perform the functions of the Competent Authority. Therefore, the State Government having exercised the said power issued the notification Annexure-G, authorising the Assistant Executive Engineers of the respondent Karnataka Housing Board, to perform the functions of 'Competent Authority'. Such an exercise of power, cannot be said to suffer from either lack of or want of jurisdiction of the State Government. The word 'any person' as set out in Section 2(f) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that it is for the State to authorise any person working in the Karnataka Housing Board to perform such functions. Moreover, it is the exclusive domain of the Karnataka Housing Board as to what steps it must take for improving the efficiency of the administration and being the preserve of the employer, the power of judicial review cannot be exercised. In fact, the petitioners have not shown that the action of the State in issuing the notification Annexure-G, is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or that it is patently arbitrary or vitiated due to mala fides. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are without merit and are accordingly, rejected.