Dismissed

Sri.Siddaramu v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023WP/9523/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners filed a writ petition praying to direct the respondents to release a balance amount after considering a representation dated 22.02.2018. Upon learning that the representation was rejected by the respondent on 30.08.2023, the court held the petition infructuous and dismissed it, keeping contentions open for challenge to the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

petition dismissed as infructuous since the underlying representation was rejected by the authorities; contentions kept open.

Sri.Siddaramu Vs the Chief Engineer — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35753 WP No. 9523 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9523 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.SIDDARAMU

¶8

S/O. SRI. SIDDEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶9

(i) SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE SRI. SIDDARAMU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶10

(ii) SRI. H.S.MANJU, S/O. LATE SRI. SIDDARAMU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(iii) SRI. H.S.KRISHNA, S/O. LATE SRI. SIDDARAMU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶13

(iv) SRI. H.S.MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. LATE SRI. SIDDARAMU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶14

(v) SMT. H.S.VIJAY KUMARI, D/O. LATE SRI. SIDDARAMU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶15

(vi) SMT. H.S.PADMA, D/O. LATE SRI. SIDDARAMU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶16

PETITIONER NOS.(i) TO (vi) ARE R/O. NO.1624, 1^ST CROSS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35753 WP No. 9523 of 2020

¶18

RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, HOSAHALLI, MANDYA-571401

¶19

(AMENDED THE CAUSE TITLE AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 01.04.2022)

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK A. HAPPALI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SOUTH RANGE, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, MYSORE-570024

¶24

CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VISHWESHWARAIAH CANAL (V.C) DIVISION, MANDYA-571401.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. B.SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TODIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.02.2018 VIDE ANNEXURES - U SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.25,99,644.72 (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKH NINETY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY FOUR AND PAISA SEVENTY TWO ONLY).

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35753 WP No. 9523 of 2020

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) had filed this writ petition seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider the representation dated

¶32

22.02.2018.

¶33

When the petition is taken up for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the said representation dated 22.02.2018 is considered and rejected by the respondent No.1 on 30.08.2023.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed a memo along with a copy of the order/reply dated 30.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.1 rejecting the representation of the deceased petitioner dated 22.02.2018. The said memo along with documents is placed on record.

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35753 WP No. 9523 of 2020

¶36

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners

¶37

acknowledges the receipt of a copy of the said reply/order dated 30.08.2023.

¶38

In that view of the matter, this writ petition has

¶39

become infructuous. Hence, it is dismissed as it has become infructuous. However, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the order/reply dated 30.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.1 in accordance with law.

¶40

All the contentions urged in this petition are

kept open.

Sd/JUDGE

SMA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri.Siddaramu v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Siddaramu v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dhanraj Jain Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Vijayakumar M C Vs State of Karnataka by

Rathish Johnson Vs Inspector

Sumanth K Korishettar Vs State by

Ravi Vs C R Rangaswamy

Smt. K.C. Kavitha Vs Smt. B.V. Sunitha