A single-judge short order dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 226 for non-prosecution and failure to comply with office objections over a two-year period despite multiple adjournments.
The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12235 WP No. 103818 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103818 OF 2022 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. JAI MATA TRADERS, 328, KARWAR ROAD, JOIDA-581 186, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. SHATARAM KAMREKAR, TIN 295304483023, LGSTO 310 DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGESH.M.BADIGER., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12235 WP No. 103818 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing. When the matter is listed before the Court, and is called out, the advocate must be present in the Court. His or her absence may effect the case.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 27.09.2022, on that day, two weeks time was granted to do the needful. Again the petition was listed on 09.07.2024, on that day, two weeks time was granted to rectify the objections raised by the registry. Despite granting time, office objections were not complied with.
The petition is listed today for orders regarding noncompliance of office objections for the third time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the petition is filed in the year 2022. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The petition is pending for almost two years. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12235 WP No. 103818 of 2022
personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for
non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 be allowed despite prolonged inactivity and non-compliance by the petitioner.
Whether the writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Jai Mata Traders
The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit-2), D.C. Compound, Dharwad
The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwad Division
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
