Dismissed

Sri. Danavendra v. the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Castes

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2018WA/1275/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed two Writ Appeals filed by Scheduled Caste/Tribe members seeking vacation of an interim order. Appellants sought withdrawal with liberty to reply and were permitted, leading to disposal by order.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to Appellants to withdraw with liberty to file reply and seek vacation of interim order; Appeals dismissed as withdrawn.

Sri. Danavendra Vs the Karnataka State Commission… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

WA No.1275/2018 & 1371-75/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NOS.1275/2018 &

¶10

1371-75/2018 (GM-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

1.SRI. DANAVENDRA S/O. NAGAPPA BADIGERA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. CHALUVADI LANE, 4^TH WARD, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, KANAKAGIRI-583 283, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 2.SMT. MALAMMA D/O. EARAMMA BADIGER, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT WARD NO.8, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, CHELUVADI ONI, KANAKAGIRI, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 281. 3.SMT. HULIGEMMA W/O. SANNA HULUGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT WARD NO.8, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, CHELUVADI ONI, KANAKAGIRI, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 281. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.PRAVEEN RAIKOTE, ADV. FOR SRI A VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, ADV. )

¶13

WA No.1275/2018 & 1371-75/2018

¶14

¶15

AND

¶16

1.THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDINGS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 281. 3.THE TAHSILDAR GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 227.

¶18

4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 281. 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 227.

¶19

6.CHIRASTHAAYEESAURYA LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 78, ELECTRONICS CITY, PHASE-1, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. ARULKUMAR PODAR ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt : POONAM S PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R6; SRI D.NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R-1 TO 5)

¶20

WA No.1275/2018 & 1371-75/2018

¶21

¶22

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/03/2018 IN WP 48559/2017 & 4904949053/2017 [GM-RES].

¶23

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants has moved a memo seeking permission to withdraw with liberty for the appellants to file reply and to seek vacation of the interim order dated 13.03.2018.

¶26

Learned counsel for the contesting respondent (writ petitioner) has no objection but, reserves his right to contest the prayer for vacation of the interim order.

¶27

Having regard to the submissions made, the appellants are permitted to withdraw and these appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with respective liberty to the parties, as prayed.

¶28

WA No.1275/2018 & 1371-75/2018

¶29

¶30

The pending interlocutory application also stands

disposed of.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

KNM/-

Sri. Danavendra v. the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Castes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Danavendra v. the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Castes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Madhura Industries Vs the Authorised Officer/ the Chief Manager

Revnasiddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Nanjunda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Alim Vs Sri. Akthar Mateen

Sri. D. v. Venkatesh Gowda Vs the Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers

Ibthesam Javeed Vs State of Karnataka