1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION NO.33949 OF 2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R V PUTTAPPA

S/O SRI LATE VENKATESH

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(CIVIL)

BMAZ, KPTCL

BANGALORE-560 009

….PETITIONER

(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR.Y.H., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:

1.

THE CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICITY

TECHNICAL AUDIT & QUALITY CONTROL

ROOM NO. 410, 4TH FLOOR

KAVERI BHAVAN

BANGALORE-560 009.

2.

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

TLSS CIRCLE, BMAZ (SOUTH)

KPTCL, A. R.CIRCLE

BANGALORE-560 009.

….RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.HARSHITHA RATHOD, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.HARIKRISHNA.S.HOLLA, ADVOCATE )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DISPOSE OFF THE

REPRESENTATION, DTD.10.6.2014 AT ANNEX-C MADE BY

2

THIS PETITIONER; DIRECT THE R-1 TO ENQUIRE INTO

THE ACTS OF MISFEASANCE AND OR MALFEASANCE

DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE YEAR

2003.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 'B' GROUP,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to consider the

representation dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure-C) and

enquire into the acts of misfeasance/malfeasance

during the period commencing from the year 2003.

2.

There

is

no

representation

for

the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent is

present through video conference. Perused the writ

petition papers.

3.

The writ petition averments would indicate

that the petitioner is working as Assistant Executive

Engineer

in

the

Karnataka

Power

Transmission

3

Corporation Ltd., (for short 'KPTCL'). It is the case of

the petitioner that certain allegations was made

against the petitioner and in that regard under

Annexure-A/Letter

dated

27.05.2014,

the

Chief

Engineer (Electricity) had sought certain information

from the Chief Engineer (Electricity), Transmission

Zone. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have made

representation at Annexure-C stating that he is

carrying on his duties in accordance with law and

regulations of the Corporation and he requested for

enquiry

from

the

year

2003

to

expose

the

irregularities in the department. As the representation

is not considered the petitioner is before this Court.

4.

For issuance of a writ of mandamus one

has to establish his legal right and corresponding

failure to perform legal duty on the part of the

respondents/Authorities. In the instant case, the

petitioner has not pointed out his legal right being an

employee of KPTCL to seek general enquiry to expose

4

the irregularities. Moreover, no individual prayer is

sought by the petitioner. Without seeking any

individual prayer, the petitioner cannot seek for a

general direction as sought in the writ petition. Hence,

writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RKA