Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 15 To January 22, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34Nominal Index:Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22Shrishail AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24Koshy Varghese AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 25Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 26Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27Harish K B AND Ponnamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 28Sadatulla Syed AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 29ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32Vihaan Peethambar AND Manipal University. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 33Dr Rajini C K AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34Judgments/OrdersJob Predominant Source Of Livelihood, Snatching It Away Offends Fundamental Right To Life: Karnataka High Court On Dismissal Sans Inquiry Case Title: Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & OthersCase No: Writ Appeal No 543 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21The Karnataka High Court has said that Grama Panchayat cannot dismiss an employee only if a criminal case is registered against him. Dismissal from service can be ordered only after holding an enquiry, it added.A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath challenginging a Single Judge's order whereby one Ganesha's dismissal from service was set aside with a direction to reinstate him in the position forthwith. The court said, “In a society like ours, job more often than not happens to be the predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job (in public employment), like the one that has happened in the case at hand, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee. That offends the pith & substance of fundamental right to life & liberty constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21.”[Intra-Court Appeal] Single Bench Not A Court Subordinate To Division Bench, Matter Decided On Merits Can't Be Remitted Back: Karnataka HC Case Title: Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: Writ Petition No 47144 OF 2018Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22The Karnataka High Court has said that in an intra-court appeal, the division bench of the high court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot remit a matter back to the single judge bench if it has been decided on merits. A single judge bench is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the high court, it added.Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation when a service dispute already decided by him on merits was once again placed before the single bench, after the Division bench allowed the appeal against the order and restored the file to the single bench.Whether Offender Or Not, Child Must Be Treated As Child: Karnataka HC Lays Down Guidelines For Ascertaining Juvenility Of Accused Before Trial Case Title: Shrishail AND State of KarnatakaCase No: Criminal Appeal No 200241 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts and special courts prescribing certain preliminary enquiry be made with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case in order to ascertain if the accused is a juvenile.A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi said, “There is no doubt that a Magistrate or Special Court has to make certain preliminary enquiry with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case during the crime stage. These enquiries are not mere formalities but they have a vital importance in ascertaining an accused to be a juvenile, mentally fit and the requirements of law are fulfilled. A child, whether an offender or not, is a child and has to be treated as a child.”Forest Way Pass Serves Laudable Purpose, Protects Forests From Possible Damage/Loss Due To Transporation Of Minerals: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: Writ Petition No 22698 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea questioning the direction upon the petitioner to obtain a forest transit pass from the Deputy Conservator of Forest to transport iron ore minerals from the railway sliding site to the factory premises. A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea filed by M/s Thakur Industries and upheld the requirement of Forest Way Pass.It observed, “It serves a laudable purpose viz., protecting the forests from the possible damage/loss by the Agencies that transport the mineral concerned.”Banks Cannot Withhold Passport Or OCI Card As Security...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 15 To January 22, 2024

Mustafa Plumber

Tags