w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Baglekar Akash Kumar v/s State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others

    Writ Petition No. 6934 of 2020 (GM-RES) PIL

    Decided On, 19 May 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: Baglekar Akash Kumar, Party-In-Person. For the Respondents: M. Dhyan Chinnappa, AAG, V.G. Bhanuprakash, AGA.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is Filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a suitable writ, order or direction to the respondents and declare the additional charge given to Respondent No.4 in Respondent No.2 department as in conflict of interest, hence violation of Principles of Natural Justice Vis--Vis Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and etc.)

Through Video Conferencing:

1. We have heard the petitioner appearing in person who is a student of Law.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service is given charge of the posts of Principal Secretaries of the Department of Labour as well as the Department of Commerce and Industries (MSME and Mines) which will lead to conflict of interests. His submission is that the conflict of interest will lead to breach of the principles of natural justice.

3. The petitioner is relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Cricket Association of Bihar1 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Purandhar Lagama Ingale and Others vs Land Tribunal, Raibag and Others2.

4. After having perused both the decisions, we find that the same are not at all applicable to the facts of the case. Firstly, we find that the issue of conflict of interest does not arise by allowing one civil servant to hold charge of the posts of Principal Secretaries of two departments. Secondly, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ Court cannot decide whether a civil servant can be allowed to hold charge of two departments. The entire petition proceeds (2015) 3 SCC 251 (1978) 2 Kant LJ 339 on the wrong premise of conflict of interest. The petition is based on some apprehensions expressed in a newspaper report which is at Annexure-A.

5. This is not a fit case at all where the petitioner can be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that also, by filing a petition in the nature of a public interest litigation.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

>6. In normal course, this Court would have saddled the petitioner with costs. However, the petitioner is a young student of Law and therefore, we are not passing any order directing him to pay costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.