JINGAR I R Vs. GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition Office has raised an objection as to its maintainability.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. P. Rangaswamy. He contends that jurisdiction of this Court under Art 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to cover judgments of Civil Courts even though an appeal lies from the said judgments. It is difficult to accept this argument. The petitioner and others like him sought redress in a Civil Court against the respondents herein. The trial Court after trial, allowed the suits of the petitioner and others. The Deputy General Manager and Divisional Controller of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, who presumably was a defendant or one ot the defendants, preferred appeals against the common order in the original suits filed by the petitioner and others. That appeal came to be allowed and the trial Court's order was set aside. Under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal lies to this Court on questions of law. The petitioner has not chosen that avenue available to him. There is nothing in the judgment of the trial Court or the appellate Court indicating that constitutional validity of certain iegulations were questioned before those Courts.If such questions were raised, under S.113 of C.P.C. those Courts would have referred these questions for decision by the High Court. Not having raised the question of constitutional validity of the regulations in the 1rial Court and appellate Couri the petitioner cannot now approach this Court under Art 225 of the Constitution quastioning the judgment in addition to the constitutional validity of the impugned Regulations.

(3.) In this view of the matter the Writ Petition does not lie and the office objection is upheld.