D.V Rama Chandra Rao (Petitioner) v. The State Of Karnataka And Others (S).

M.P Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.:— The petitionor is aggrieved by the transfer from Periyapatna to Arkalgud. He was originally working as Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Bannur, in Mysore District By an order dated 3-7-1984 as many as 60 Chief Officers of the District were transferred by the Government. That order is at Annexure-E to the petition. In Annexure-E at S1. No. 16 the petitioner has been shown as Chief Officer Town Municipal Council, Bannur. But in Annexure-F, dated nil, it is pointed out that the petitioner who was the Ex-Chief Officer of Bannur, now working as Chief Officer at Periyapatna, stands transferred to Arkalgud as per the order of 3-7-1984.

2. The attack is on the ground that the Government had no jurisdiction to pass the order, in the light of the delegation made by it, the power under Section 320 of the Karnataka Town Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the Divisional Commissioners in the State. In fact, reliance was placed on the decision of Jagannatha Shetty J ‘in W.P No. 891/1972 disposed of on 30-11-1973 reported in Short Notes’ Item No. 199 [1974 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 54]. No doubt, the decision rendered therein supports the contentions advanced. But that does not appear to be the law laid down by the Supreme Court. There is distinction between abdication of power and delegation of power. If a Statute confers power on the Government to delegate its power to another specified authority, such delegation does not leave the Government denuded of its power conferred by the Statute.

3. That power which is delegated can be exercised both by the delegator and the delegate there is no power implied or express which enables the Government to denude itself of the power conferred by the Statute. This has been explained by the Supreme Court in more than one case. (See Epari Channa Krishana Murthy v. The State of Orissa [A.I.R 1964 S.C 1581] and N.K Papiah and sons v. The Excise Commissioner [(1975) 1 SCC 492 : A.I.R 1975 S.C 1007]. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, there is no substance in this argument.

4. It has been contended that the first order is bad because the petitioner is no longer at Bannur. That is obvious because the second order has become necessary only because of the error. The second order at Annexure-F is a corrigendum and no more.

5. Thirdly, it has been urged that the 6th respondent who was once the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council at Periyapatna had been transferred at the request of the Town Municipal Council Periyapatna to Bannur and he has influenced the Government to transfer him back. I cannot accede to that contention. The preamble to the transfer order clearly indicates that it has been done in public interest and the transfer order has affected 60 of the Chief Officers in the District. I therefore do not believe the allegation that a Chief Officer can bring influence upon the Government to make such a transfer, so that he can go back wherever he wanted to go.

6. It was next urged that if the petitioner is transferred his children's education would be affected. Time and again this court has said that such circumstances should be borne by the officer and the court is helpless.

7. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition and it is rejected.

8. Petition dismissed.