Single-Judge-writ appeal dismissed as controversy concluded by a subsequent judgment (W.A. No.281/2021) finding no case for interference. No-order-on-costs.
Writ appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NO.345 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. E. MARY MAGDALENE W/O LATE DAYALAN,
2
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, KEB QUARTERS, CHAMPION REEF, KGF-563117, KOLAR DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.8705/2020 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.8705/2020 (Irudayanadan Pokisham v. The Director (A & HR).
3
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
hnm
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. Smt. ShamimunnisaReferred¶25
W.A. No.281/2021
The Director (A and HR) KPTCL and others
Smt. E. Mary Magdalene
Satish Chandra Sharma
Nataraj Rangaswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
