Dismissed

Smt. Rathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WA/914/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal filed by SC/ST certificate beneficiaries challenging their rejection was this time listed for compliance of office objections. Beauty of court held that there is no justification to allow further time and the appeal stands dismissed as the appellants failed to comply with conditions and paid costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief, appeal dismissed due to non-compliance with office objections and outstanding costs.

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44178-DB WA No. 914 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2023 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O CHIKKAMUNIGA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O GOOGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE DODDANALLALA POST-562 114 JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENTGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶10

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. RAJAMMA D/O CHIKKAMUNIGA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O GOOGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE DODDANALLALA POST-562 114 JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENTGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SMT. BHAVANA M. JINDE FOR SRI. SURESHA M, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1^ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:44178-DB WA No. 914 of 2023

¶18

KUNDANA HOBLI-562 110 DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶20

SRI. K.G. KODANDARAM S/O V. GIDDANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.648, NO.35 23^RD MAIN ROAD 21^ST CROSS, 2^ND SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 035

¶21

SRI. BASAPPA S/O DODDAMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶22

SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶23

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶24

SRI. BHADRAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶25

SRI. B.M. RAMESH S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶26

SRI. BHADRAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:44178-DB WA No. 914 of 2023

¶29

SRI. M. MUNIYAPPA S/O MUNISAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶30

RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 10 ARE R/O BELLIKERE VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK-560 087 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶31

…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01-06-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 2690/2022 (SC-ST) AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEFs AS SOUGHT THEREIN AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶34

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:44178-DB WA No. 914 of 2023

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶39

Learned counsel Smt.Bhavana M.Jinde for

¶40

Sri Suresh M. appearing for the appellants prays for further time to comply the office objections.

¶41

This appeal is being listed for compliance of office objections for 9^th time. On 21.10.2024, two weeks' time was finally granted to comply the office objections subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Advocates' Welfare Fund. Cost is neither paid nor office objections are complied.

¶42

There is no justification to grant further time. Appeal stands dismissed .

¶43

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt. Rathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Sri. Nitin Subramanian Vs the Authorised Officer/

Sri. Nagesh K Vs Sri. C Y Paramashivaiah

The Board of Directors of Vs Smt Mumtaz

Sri. Ramachandran Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sakamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. N Rajeshwari Vs Kuvempu University