AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 488 wordsJawad Rahim
Revision is directed against the order passed by the district judge in an action u/s 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). The petition is posted to hear on the application seeking condonation of delay (I.A.I/11) of 128 days in filing the petition.
Although the circumstances narrated in the affidavit accompanying the application do not constitute sufficient cause, to give one more opportunity to the petitioner and as the dispute relates to payment of compensation, the delay of 128 days is allowed. I.A.I/11 is accordingly allowed.
Sri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Power Transport Corporation takes notice and submits the petition itself is not maintainable in view of the finality attached to the order of the district judge in exercise of power u/s 16 of the Act.
My attention is drawn to sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the said enactment which adumbrates ''Every determination of a dispute by a district judge under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final.
Since there is finality attached to the said order, the question is, whether it is amenable to revision.
The issue as to whether the order passed by the district judge in exercise of power conferred by any other statute had come up for consideration before this court in the case of A. Yadava (Deceased by LR) & etc. v. Authorised officer, & DCF, Chikkamangalore (2006 (2) AIR Kar. R 126). Considering the conspectus of the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, it as held as finality is given to the orders passed by the district judge in exercise of power u/s 71D of the Forest Act, the said order was not amenable to revision u/s 397, Cr.P.C. Writ action was the only remedy. This view was based on the earlier view of this court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Narayan iyer (1979 (1) Kar. L.J. 102).
The issue considered in the former decision was regarding an order passed by the district judge in exercise of revisional or appellate power conferred by any statute, which court was subordinate to the High Court to invoke revisional power. Therefore, the question is, whether revisional power of this court could be exercised in a similar situation either under the CPC or the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Undoubtedly, the impugned order is passed in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on the district judge to determine compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. Since sub-section (5) gives finality to it, the principle enunciated in the case of YADAVA (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the case on hand to hold that the revision filed u/s 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is not without remedy. He has a right to seek redressal in writ action.
With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.