AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—The complaint of the Petitioners against the Respondent - The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, is that the Respondent who had initiated suo motu proceedings in cases bearing No. RRT 2 CR 23 OF 06-07 and RRT 2 CR 23A of 2006-07, now consolidated and renumbered as RRT 2 CR 1 of 2008-09 vide Annexures-D & E has issued notice in No. RRT(2)CR 23/2006-07 (Annexure-B) to the Petitioners to examine the correctness or otherwise of entries in the revenue records insofar as it related to the writ Petitioners are concerned; that the 1st Petitioner claiming interest in an extent of 1 acre and 2nd Petitioner claiming interest in an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No. 115 of Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk on the basis of certain private sale transactions dated 25.5.2005, is taking too long period and contemplating too much to pass orders after having heard the matter and closing the enquiry on 19.3.2009.
Appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submission of Sri M.S. Varadarajan, learned Counsel is that the Respondent is unable to contemplate and pass orders and therefore, a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the Respondent to become active to pass orders.
Notice had been issued to the Respondent. Respondent is represented by Sri R. Om Kumar, learned AGA.
Based on the instructions or information said to have been given by the Nodal Officer attached to the office of the Advocate General, who is of the rank of the Tahsildar is that the file is not to be traced in the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The response of the Respondent is a very convenient, self-serving and evasive response. If the Special Deputy Commissioner, who has initiated enquiry is not responsible or efficient enough to pass orders even after a period of 1 year 9 months having elapsed and that too after the case had been reserved for orders and even when notice is issued from this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus, a response in the nature of that the record is not traceable etc., is nothing short of not only an irresponsible attitude, but a careless negligence response. A Special Deputy Commissioner giving such a response to the court notice is not worthy of his position and can only elicit commensurate action from the Court.
It is therefore, the matter requires to be investigated further by the competent authority. What with the Special Deputy Commissioner''s Office or post being synonym for corruption, nepotism and what not, a direction is issued to the Registrar (General) of this Court to forward a copy of this order to the Karnataka Lokayuktha and the Karnataka Lokayuktha to investigate into the facts and circumstances, under which the Special Deputy Commissioner had not only taken suo motu cognizance for initiating the proceedings and also to investigate the circumstances under which he has not passed orders so far and a further no response to the court notice. It is necessary that a proper enquiry and investigation is carried out by the Karnataka Lokayuktha in respect of the particular Officer who had caused the suo motu proceedings to be initiated, whether or not he is holding the post of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, as of now.
The Registrar (General) of this Court to forward copies of this writ petition and annexures and this order to the Office of the Karnataka Lokayuktha.
However, for the purpose of disposal, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction issued to the Respondent to pass orders in the matter within a period 3 months from today, if not already passed.
Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order free of cost, to Sri R. Om Kumar, learned AGA.