VARADARAYA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Varadaraja Nayak is seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 4. 10. 2001 and 12. 10. 2001 Annexures G and F respectively as violative of the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 (Act for short ). Petitioner wants a direction by way of sanction under Section 33 of the Act to prosecute third respondent in terms of an application made by the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER is a dealer. He is a Managing Director of M/s Shri Shantheri Kamakshi Traders, Mangalore. Petitioner is an assessee in terms of the Sales Tax Laws. Third respondent payed an assessment officer. He rejected the return for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. He passed exparte orders. Appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner. Third respondent during the pendency of appeal proceedings initiated criminal proceedings in CC No. 12/2000 for violation of the provisions of Section 29 (2) (c), (d), (e) and (m) of the Act. The case was contested. Third respondent made a statement before these Magistrates. He stated that he did not obtain prior sanction in terms of Section 30 of the Act before launching prosecution. Learned trial judge acquitted the petitioner in terms of the order at Annexure-B. Thereafter, petitioner sought for prosecution of the third respondent and a reminder was sent to that effect. In the absence of any positive action, a writ petition was filed in this Court and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent issued an endorsement dated 4. 10. 2001 at Annexure-G. In the said endorsement it is stated that no permission need be granted in the light of initiation of departmental proceedings and in the light of the officer having acted in good faith. Additional affidavit is filed at the time of arguments. It is stated in the additional affidavit that the third respondent has filed some more cases and they were dismissed for non-prosecution. He has also filed a complaint with the police authorities. He has further passed the information on to the Income Tax Department. He has reopened the assessment proceedings.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. Third respondent filed a detailed counter contesting the petition. He has stated that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and an order has been passed in this regard. He has also denied other averments. He has stated that large sums of money are involved and therefore the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is stated that an original suit was filed by the present petitioner and the said suit was dismissed by the learned judge in terms of Annexure-R2.