Dismissed

Sri. K. Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2016WP/48588/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed to quash a revenue notice. The petitioner failed to comply with fifteen outstanding office objections despite repeated extensions. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution due to cavalier attitude and repeated delays.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to comply with office objections.

Sri. K. Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.48588 OF 2014 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. K. Raghavendra, Son of Sri. A. Kempanna, Aged about 34 years, Residing at Addiganahalli Village, Hesarghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk 560 064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Siddappa, Advocate for Shri G.D.Aswathanarayana, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, By its Revenue Secretary, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore 560 001.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore 560 001.

¶14

¶15

The Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangaloe 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Shri Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice in NO.LND/NV/CR/46/2014-15 issued by the respondent no.3 vide Annexure-A and etc;

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

It is noticed that there were 16 office objections raised.

¶23

Inspite of time having been granted to the petitioner to comply

¶24

with the same, it was not done and therefore the matter was

¶25

listed before the court on 23.1.2015, on which date, two weeks’

¶26

time was granted. Even after two weeks, there was noncompliance. The matter was again listed on 10.6.2015. Even then there was no compliance. On 13.7.2015, a week’s time was again granted. There was non-compliance. Further, on

¶27

¶28

10.9.2015, it was claimed that needful had been done, but it was found that out of 16 objections, only 10 had been complied with and time was again granted on 26.11.2015.

¶29

It is in this background that the matter is again listed before the court today. The learned Counsel for the petitioner casually seeks further time to comply with the office objections.

¶30

Given the cavalier manner in which the office objections have been attended to and the repeated adjournments granted to comply with the office objections, there is no warrant

¶31

for granting time. The petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri. K. Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. G. Yerri Swamy Vs the Commissioner

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax

Shri Raghupathi Vs Smt Kanakamma

Ms Sri Lakshminarayana Swamy Stone Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial

Preusse India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Smt Devika S D Vs the Deputy Commissioner