A HC Division Bench pulled up State government for 589 days’ delay in filing a writ appeal against a single judge order passed in September 2005. The Court took a serious view of insufficient explanation for the delay.

The State government represented by Education Secretary had filed a writ appeal in May 2007 against a single judge order on Sept 13, 2005, directing grant of pensionary benefits to one B B Hadalagi and few other staff of an aided college in Jamkhandi. The petition came up for preliminary hearing along with an application seeking condonation of delay before the Bench comprising Justice Deepak Verma and Justice K L Manjunath.

The Bench observed that though copy of impugned judgement was obtained on September 29, 2005, Legal Cell’s opinion about filing appeal was given on November 23, 2005, while Government authorisation was given in April 17, 2007. It perused the affidavit filed by Higher Education department’s under secretary along with the application for condonation of delay, and took a serious exception to the “casual manner” in which Government authorities were filing such explanatory affidavits. The Bench then directed the government counsel to file an affidavit explaining day-to-day delay, while also seeking to know as to whether any action had been initiated against the officials responsible for the delay.

Swamiji gets ashram

The HC on Wednesday set aside the appointment of Receiver to the properties of Omkar ashram in Bangalore. The Court directed Bangalore South Tahsildar to hand over ashram properties to Madhusudandapuri swamiji before February 14.

Justice K Bhaktavatsala passed this order while allowing a writ petition by Madhusudanandapuri swamiji, one of the two seers claiming succession to the ashram. His petition had challenged the validity of November 5 order of Bangalore South Sub-Divisional Magistrate appointing the Tahsildar to administer ashram properties. The magistrate’s order had followed a dispute regarding succession.

“When the petitioner was in possession of Ashram, it was the duty of the magistrate and police to give him protection, in stead of initiating enquiry proceedings regarding the dispute and appoint receiver”, the Court said.