WRIT PETITION NOs.442-443/2012 (GM-RES) C/W. WRIT...
Transcript of WRIT PETITION NOs.442-443/2012 (GM-RES) C/W. WRIT...
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NOs.442-443/2012 (GM-RES)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NOs.432-436 & 437-441/2012(GM-RES)
IN W.P. NOs.442-443/2012
BETWEEN :
1. Sri Bhujanga ShettyS/o late Venkappa ShettyAged about 66 years
Sri Durga NivasBajpe Kateel Road
Bajpe,Mangalore Taluk-574142.
2. Sri Ullas R. ShettyS/o late Ramachandra ShettyAged about 42 years
“Yashoram”, AyyakkriSurathkal, Mangalore-14. ..Petitioners
(By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, Adv.,)
- 2 -
AND :
1. Deputy CommissionerDakshina Kannada
Mangalore.
2. Under Secretary toGovernment of Karnataka
Revenue Department(Rehabilitation)
M.S. BuildingDr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 003.
3. State of KarnatakaBy its Secretary to theRevenue Department
M.S. BuildingDr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 001.
4. Mangalore SEZ ProjectNo.16, Pranava Park
III Floor, Infantry RoadBangalore-560 001
Rep by itsManaging Director & CEO.
5. Damodhar ShettyS/o Boja Shetty
Age MajorR/a MSEZ Colony
Thokur VillageMangalore.
6. ShivanandaC/o Jayaram ShettyAge Major
- 3 -
R/a MSEZ, R & R ColonyKulai, Mangalore.
7. Sri Dinesh HS/o Honnaya PoojaryAge Major
R/a Shanthi NagarBajpe Post
Mangalore-574142.
8. Sri Kiran KumarS/o Madhava Poojari
Age MajorR/a Jatha Bettu
Thota house
Jokatte PostMangalore.
9. Sri KishoreS/o Ragu ShettyAge Major
R/a Annapoorneshwari HouseMSEZ, R & R Colony
Kodikere, KulaiMangalore.
10. Sri Sharath KumarS/o Thukaram PoojaryKodimar House
Hosamane, Kalavar Post
Mangalore-574142. ..Respondents
(By Sri K. Krishna, AGA., for R1 to R3;Sri P.D. Vishwanath, Adv., for R4;
Sri Sachin for M/s. DharmashreeAssociates, Adv., for R5 to R10)
- 4 -
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare clause15.1 provision 1.0 and 4.1 of Annexure to the order dated2.12.2011 in No.RD 116 REH 2011 Bangalore videAnnexure-A as ultravires.
IN W.P. NOs.432-436 & 437-441/2012
BETWEEN :
1. Sri Dinesh ShettyS/o Shridhar ShettyAged about 35 years
Sri Krishna Dhama
Shivadurga CompoundMajila, Ullanje
Mennabettu, KinnigoliMangalore Taluk.
2. Sri Keshava N. PoojaryS/o Nonayya PoojaryAged about 43 years
‘Bramari Nilaya’Kodikeri, Kulai.
3. Reshma J. ShettyW/o Jagadish ShettyPatte Magandady House
Aged 31 years
Kudripadavu PostMangalore Taluk.
4. Vinod Victor PatraoAged 28 yearsS/o Marul Patro
“Ave Maria”, MRPL RRSEZ Colony, Near Permudu
- 5 -
Higher Primary SchoolMaindaguri, Kulai
Mangalore.
5. Sri Praveen S. ShettyS/o Subbayya Shetty
Aged about 36 yearsVenkateshwara Building
Opp. Ayyappa TempleK.R. Puram, Bangalore-36.
6. Sri ShaileshS/o Vajranabha KambliAged 19 years
Sri Satya Sai Sadana
Sankala Kariya, MundkoorPost, Karkala
Udupi District.
7. Kiran KumarS/o Ratnakar Shetty
Aged 25 years‘Sammbruddi’, Shiva Durga
Compound, Majila UllanjiMannabettu Grama Kimingoli
Mangalore Taluk.
8. Prajwal S. BangeraS/o Shankar Bangera
Aged 23 years
Sri nidhi Kanikatla RoadPermudu Post, Mangalore.
9. Bharathesh ShettyS/o Shekar ShettyAged 27 years
Kalpavriksha, Permudu PostMangalore.
- 6 -
10. Mohammed Nawaz S/o B.K. Hasanabba
Aged 30 years Kolakutya House
Jokatle RoadMangalore Taluk. ..Petitioners
(By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Deputy CommissionerDakshina KannadaMangalore.
2. Under Secretary toGovernment of Karnataka
Revenue Department(Rehabilitation)
M.S. BuildingDr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 003.
3. State of KarnatakaBy its Secretary to the
Revenue DepartmentM.S. Building
Dr. Ambedkar VeedhiBangalore-560 001.
4. Mangalore SEZ ProjectNo.16, Pranava Park
III Floor, Infantry RoadBangalore-560 001
Rep by itsManaging Director & CEO.
- 7 -
5. Sri Damodhar ShettyS/o Boja Shetty
Age MajorR/a MSEZ Colony
Thokur VillageMangalore.
6. Sri ThejeshS/o Ragava PoojaryAge Major
R/a Shiva SanidhyaMSEZ Colony
Kalavar Post & VillageMangalore.
7. ShivanandaC/o Jayaram Shetty
Age MajorR/a MSEZ, R & R Colony
Kulai, Mangalore.
8. Sri Niranjan Nandan KumarS/o Sadhashiva Poojary
R/a Dota HousePorkody Post & Village
Mangalore.
9. Sri ChittaranjanAge Major
R/a Sanjivini Nilaya
Tayar BettuMNabjuru
SrinivasanagarMangalore.
10. Sri Ramesh
S/o Nonayya Suvadna Age Major
- 8 -
R/a Gorimar House Bajape, Mangalore.
11. Sri Deepak Kumar
C/o Baba Poojary Age Major
R/a Bajpe Village & Post Mangalore.
12. Sri Girisha
S/o Laxman Bangera Age Major
R/a MSEZ Colony Kalavar Post & Village
Mangalore-574142.
13. Sri Dinesh H
S/o Honnaya PoojaryAge Major
R/a Shanthi NagarBajpe Post
Mangalore-574142.
14. Sri Kotian Nitin Ramnath S/o Ramnath N. Kotian
Site No.F-01, Skanda House Moodabettu, Kulai
Mangalore.
15. Sri Kiran Kumar
S/o Madhava Poojari Age Major
R/a Jatha Bettu Thota house
Jokatte Post Mangalore.
- 9 -
16. Sri Chandrashekar K S/o Dasappa Acharya
Aged Major R/a Kalavar, Kaikamba
MSEZ Colony, Kalakar Mangalore. ..Respondents
(By Sri K. Krishna, AGA., for R1 to R3;
Sri P.D. Vishwanath, Adv., for R4;Sri Sachin for M/s. Dharmashree
Associates, Adv., for R5 to R10)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the clause4.1 of the Annexure to the Government order dated2.12.2011 in No.RD 116 REH 2011 Bangalore videAnnexure-A to the extent it gives priority for the KPT trainedcandidates in each category of PDF nominees in jobsprovided by MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearingin ‘B’ group, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R
Petitioners in WP.Nos.442-443/2012 seek
quashing of Clause 15.1 of the Government Order
bearing No.RD.116.REH.2011, dated 2.12.2011 vide
Annexure-A and for declaration that the said clause is
ultra vires of the policy framed by the State
- 10 -
Government for rehabilitation of the displaced
persons.
2. WP.Nos.432-436 & 437-441/2012 are filed
praying for quashing Clause 4.1 of the Government
Order dated 2.12.2011 (vide Annexure-A) to the
extent it gives priority for KPT trained candidates in
each category of Project Displaced Family nominees in
jobs provided by MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL.
3. The records reveal that the State Government
has framed the policy as per Annexure-B dated
20.6.2007 for providing rehabilitation of the displaced
persons in respect of Mangalore Special Economic
Zone. The said policy is amended from time to time
including the one of 2.12.2011 as per Annexure-A.
Under the rehabilitation policy at Annexure-B, a Multi
Member Committee is formed as is clear from Clause
20 of the Scheme. The said Clause reveals that the
- 11 -
Committee is formed under the Chairmanship of the
Deputy Commissioner, having representatives of
KIADB, Land Requiring Authority, MRPL, concerned
District Officers and the representatives of the Project
Displaced Families. According to the petitioners, they
are also the members of the Rehabilitation
Committee. When the work of rehabilitation is going
on, the impugned order dated 2.12.2011 vide
Annexure-A is issued by the State Government
making certain amendments to the
policy/Rehabilitation Scheme. The said amendment
was to Clause 15 of the original Scheme. The relevant
portion of the amendment is found in Clause 15.1 and
the same reads thus:-
“15.1 The Deputy Commissioner,
Dakshina Kannada District is empowered as
the authority for implementation of the
employment process including absorption
- 12 -
plan, timelines Methodology etc., as
detailed in the Annexure, appended to this
Government Order.”
From the said amendment, it is clear that the
Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District is
the sole authority empowered to implement the
employment process, including the absorption plan,
timelines methodology, etc. The petitioners being the
members of the Rehabilitation Committee contend
that such amendment brought by the State
Government is erroneous, inasmuch as the same runs
contrary to the main Rehabilitation Scheme, dated
20.6.2007. According to the petitioners, it is not open
for the State Government to entrust the
implementation of the employment process only to the
Deputy Commissioner of the District and it should
- 13 -
have been retained with the Rehabilitation Committee
framed under Clause 20 of the Scheme.
4. Before passing the impugned order at
Annexure-A, a meeting was conducted on 13.6.2011
(as is clear from Annexure-A itself) under the
Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister for Ports, Inland
Water Transport, Fisheries, Ecology and Environment
and District In-charge Minister with the
representatives of the Project Displaced Families and
the representatives from MRPL, OMPL, ISPRI, MSEZI,
Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada District
and other State Government Officers. In the said
meeting, the demands of the Project Displaced
Families for providing employment or employment
after training was discussed at length. The
suggestions offered by the representatives of Project
Displaced Families along with representatives of
- 14 -
OMPL, ISPRL, MSEZL and MRPL were considered.
Thereafter it was decided that a definite commitment
from MSEZL and other Units is required in respect of
providing employment to the members of the Project
Displaced Families in proportion to the land allotted to
each individual unit. In the said meeting, it was
further decided that the Deputy Commissioner,
Dakshina Kannada District shall be entrusted with the
responsibility of implementation of the employment
process with the specific direction that he shall
oversee and finalize the absorption numbers of
employment and also the criteria for selection process
by the respective companies. Thus, it is clear that the
impugned order is passed amending Clause 15 of the
Scheme after consultation with the Project Displaced
Families and the representatives of employer
companies including the Government Officers. Thus,
it cannot be said that the State Government has taken
- 15 -
unilateral decision. Entrustment of the work of the
implementation of the employment process to the
Deputy Commissioner merely amounts to entrustment
of one of the work of the Rehabilitation Committee.
This Court does not find any error in entrusting such
matter to the Deputy Commissioner, particularly when
the said decision is taken by the State Government
after consultation with the Project Displaced Families
and the employers. Merely because the petitioners
are the members of Rehabilitation Committee, they
cannot expect the State Government to hear them
also while amending the policy/rehabilitation Scheme.
Ultimately, it is for the State Government to amend
Scheme depending upon the need of affected people.
The State Government is the best authority to frame
its Scheme. Unless and until the Scheme is arbitrary
and irrational, such Scheme of the State Government
will not be interfered with by this Court.
- 16 -
5. The entrustment of the work relating to the
implementation of employment process to the Deputy
Commissioner might have been done with the object
of implementation of the project speedier. The Deputy
Commissioner is an independent State Government
Authority and no motive can be attached to such an
authority. If at all anybody is aggrieved by the
inaction or overaction on the part of the Deputy
Commissioner, it is open for such aggrieved party to
take recourse to law to get such defects rectified. The
petitioners are stated to be only the members of the
Rehabilitation Committee. If at all there should be
any grievance, it should be for the Project Displaced
Families inasmuch as they are affected persons in the
matter. Since the representatives of the Project
Displaced Families have themselves agreed for
empowering the Deputy Commissioner for
implementation of the employment process, including
- 17 -
the absorption, etc., this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned order.
More over, mere making out a legal point may
not be sufficient ground for this Court to interfere with
the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
particularly relating to policy matters, if such policy is
neither arbitrary, irrational or violative of provisions of
Constitution of India. Therefore, writ petitions are
liable to be dismissed.
6. So also this Court does not find any ground
to interfere with the impugned order in WP.No.432-
436 & 437-441/2012.
Under Clause 4.1 of the impugned order at
Annexure-A, dated 2.12.2011, the methodology is
prescribed for selection of the persons who are to be
- 18 -
employed in different categories. The said Clause
reads thus:-
“4.1- The current units viz., MRPL, OMPL,
ISPRL would provide employment to the
no. of PDF’s to be absorbed by each of
them, based on their (PDF’s) qualification
and will not insist to appear for selection
test. DC, D.K.Dist., Mangalore would
finalize the list of PDF nominees in different
categories to be provided jobs by MRPL,
OMPL, ISPRL, with KPT trained PDF
nominees to get first priority in each
category.”
From the aforementioned amended Clause, it is
clear that MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL Committee will provide
employment to the Project Displaced Family nominees
based on their qualification and they will not insist the
candidates to appear for selection test. However,
under the said Clause the Deputy Commissioner is
- 19 -
directed to finalize the list of Project Displaced Family
trained nominees in different categories to be
provided jobs. Such trained candidates will get first
priority in the employment. This Court does not find
any unreasonableness in the said condition. On the
other hand, such a condition is perfectly reasonable
and in accordance with law. The companies are not
expected to absorb the persons who are untrained.
The aforesaid Clause states that the trained persons
will get first priority. If such trained candidates are
not available, the untrained candidates also may be
provided with jobs. Such training will be given by the
Deputy Commissioner free of cost depending on the
interest of the candidates. If a particular candidate is
interested in particular job, training will be conducted
only in such avocation.
- 20 -
In the original policy of 20.6.2007 itself (Clause
15), it is clearly mentioned that the persons aged
between 18 to 25 years coming from the Project
Displaced Families would be given job training
depending on their educational qualification. It is
needless to observe that such training will be given
with free of cost by the State Government. Clause 16
of the original policy also makes it clear that in case if
anybody does not want the employment, they would
be given amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs in lieu of
employment. Thus, the amended policy is perfectly in
consonance with the original policy and it does not
contravene the original policy at all. On the other
hand, it helps to implement the original policy
effectively.
In view of the above, the writ petitions are liable
to be dismissed.
- 21 -
Accordingly all the writ petitions stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*ck/nk-