High Court snubs KSRTC on transfer of employee
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Monday upheld a single judge order ruling that an employee of one transport corporation could not be transferred to another.
Sujit, the petitioner had approached the High Court challenging his transfer from the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Hassan, to the North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation at Gulbarga stating that the he could not be transferred from one road transport corporation to the other.
A single judge had ruled in favour of the petitioner stating that the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation could not transfer the employee to another corporation.
This was challenged by the KSRTC before a Division Bench. The Bench comprising Justice V G Sabhahit and Justice B Manohar upheld the order of the single judge and directed the KSRTC to frame rules for transfer of employees within the corporation.
The High Court has issued a notice to the state government, Special DC Bangalore Urban, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and others in a matter related to the violation of building byelaws.
JP Nagar 1st Phase Residents Association and BR Udupa had challenged the sanction accorded for a group housing project on a land belonging to Munivenkatappa and developed by Sobha Developers in JP Nagar 1st Phase.
The petitioners contended that the land measuring 11 acres and 29 guntas was earmarked for the formation of JP Nagar 1st Phase, but was denotified and later a conversion order was issued on August 26, 2008 and permission to construct 231 apartments on the land.
This violated Section 14A of the Town and Country Planning Act as no public interest was served by the conversion of the land, they contended.
Zonal regulations have also been violated, the petitioners contended as the property is situated on a road that is only 9.5 meters wide, while zonal rules calls for a road width of 30 meters for properties that are above 4,000 sq meters.
In this case, the petitioners contended, the property is more than 31,000 sq meters.
The petitioner prayed for the quashing of the sanction and conversion plans and sought directions from the Court to take action against erring officers.