Appeal confined to costs is not maintainable; salary recovery for non-compliance with a refund order was sustained.

An appeal confined solely to an order as to costs was held not maintainable, since a challenge cannot lie merely against the award of costs, including under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also upheld recovery of costs from the Commissioner's salary, reasoning that as administrative head of the department he was responsible for compliance with the refund order and that the failure to implement it justified the cost direction. A prior appeal against the same order had already been dismissed, and the challenge to the cost recovery failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act was maintainable against an order limited to imposition of costs. (ii) Whether the order directing recovery of costs from the salary of the Commissioner was liable to be interfered with on merits.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act was maintainable against an order limited to imposition of costs.

Analysis: The appeal questioned only the component relating to costs. The Court held that an appeal does not lie merely against an award of costs, including under the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore an appeal under section 4 was not maintainable when confined to that part of the order.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the order directing recovery of costs from the salary of the Commissioner was liable to be interfered with on merits.

Analysis: The Court held that the Commissioner, as the administrative head of the department, was responsible for ensuring compliance with the refund order. The failure to implement the refund order justified the levy of costs and its recovery from the salary of the first respondent. The Court also noted that a prior appeal against the same order had already been dismissed and found no merit in the challenge to the cost direction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cost direction failed and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be untenable and devoid of merit, and the impugned cost direction was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal confined solely to an order as to costs is not maintainable, and where a departmental head is responsible for enforcement of a refund order, recovery of costs from his salary may be sustained for non-compliance.

---