Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 - April 24, 2022

Nominal Index: Rajkumar And The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 122 WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 123 Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 124 Ms Padmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 125 Dr. UMESH P.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 126 VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 127 Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary to the Government of India 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 128 Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 129 K Srinivas V The Karnataka State Election Commission 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 130 Shanthi Nikethan High Court v other v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 131 P Balaji Babu v. State Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 132 Judgments/Orders/Reports 1. S.370 IPC Can't Be Invoked On "Presumption" That Accused Indulged Himself In Human Trafficking: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Rajkumar And The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6118 Of 2021 Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 122 The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked merely on the presumption that an accused indulged himself in human trafficking. A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while quashing criminal proceedings initiated against one Rajkumar said, "What can be gathered from the complaint and the chargesheet that is filed by the police is that, it is presumed that the petitioner had indulged himself in human trafficking and therefore, Section 370 of the IPC was invoked against the petitioner." 2: Power To Decide Applications For School Upgradation Is A "Public Power" Vested With State For Effectuating A Public Purpose: Karnataka High Court Case Title: WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1682/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 123 The Karnataka High Court has said that applications filed before authorities seeking approval for upgradation of the schools should be decided in a time bound manner as the applications are filed for specific academic year and if the decision making authorities take too long a time for disposing of the applications, the academic year itself would have been over rendering the applications irrelevant or infructuous. 3: Nominated Members Of Municipality Have No Right To Vote In Municipal Council's Meeting: Karnataka High Court Upholds Article 243R(2)(a) Case Title: Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 4457/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 124 The Karnataka High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of Article 243R (2)(a) of the Constitution has reiterated that nominated members to the Municipal Council shall not have right to vote in the meeting of the Council. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, while dismissing a petition filed by six nominated councillors of the Malur Town Municipal Council said, "The elected members of the Council are chosen by popular vote and carry with them, the mandate of the people, whereas, nominated members of the Council are appointed as Councillors. The elected members and nominated members cannot be said to be belonging to the same class and there is no pleading that differentiation between elected and nominated members is either unreasonable or is arbitrary or that it does not rest on any rational basis. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, challenge to the validity of Article 243R (2) (a) that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, fails." 4. Air India Is Now A Private Company": Karnataka High Court Refuses To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction U/Art 226 On Employees' Plea Case Title: Ms Padmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation Case No: Writ Petition No.21448 Of 2021 Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 125 The Karnataka High Court has said that since Air India Limited is now a private Company owned by M/s.Talace Pvt. Ltd., the grievance of the employees can be redressed only before the competent authority which can deal with the question and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A single judge bench of Justice R Devdas made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by petitioner Padmavathi Subramaniyan and two other employees of Air India Limited. The petitioner had approached the court with a grievance in matter of seniority. 5: No Violation Of Fundamental Rights: Karnataka HC Upholds Centre's Decision De-Recognising 'Vaidya Vidwaan' Certificates Awarded Between 1975-2010 Case Title: Dr. UMESH P.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE Case No: W.A.No.148/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 126 The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notification dated June 25, 2010 issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 - April 24, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags