The Tahasildar Yelahanka Taluk vs. The State Of Karnataka

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).6914/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-03-2021 in WA No. 4081/2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)

THE TAHASILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. Respondent(s)

(WITH I.R.)

Date : 01-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv. For M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1 Mr Yatindra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (Tahasildar Yelahanka Taluk), with Mr Anand Sanjay M Nuli, learned counsel, submits that on 13 December 2019, the writ petition was filed before the Single Judge and on 16 December 2019, a direction for the personal presence of the Tahasildar on 19 December 2019 was issued on which date the petition was finally disposed of. It has been submitted that in these circumstances no opportunity was granted to the respondents to the writ petition, including the petitioner, to file a counter affidavit. The matter was carried in appeal before Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2021.07.01 17:09:28 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

the Division Bench and the order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed on 9 March 2021.

• 2 During the course of the hearing, a compilation of additional documents has been sought to be filed which contains, inter alia, a communication of the Regional Commissioner dated 24/30 May 2007 to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Admittedly, the above communication was neither produced before the learned Single Judge nor before the Division Bench.
• 3 In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the appropriate course of action would be to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Division Bench of the High Court in a review petition, explaining the circumstances in which the aforesaid material and any other material which the petitioner seeks to rely upon could not be produced before the High Court. The High Court may take an appropriate view in the matter when such a review petition is filed. In order to facilitate this exercise, we direct that for a period of eight weeks from today, the direction which has been issued by the High Court against the petitioner for the levy of costs and for conducting a disciplinary proceeding shall be held in abeyance so as to facilitate the petitioner to file a review.
• 4 In the event that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the High Court, we grant liberty to him to pursue remedies in accordance with law, including on the grounds which have been raised in the present petition.
• 5 Subject to the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
• 6 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

2