The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 due to non-prosecution and persistent non-compliance with office objections over four years, especially as the petitioner was absent when called. (60 words)
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:12792 WP No. 144647 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 144647 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA SULADAL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NINGYANATTI-590 001, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.S.PATIL AND SRI. SABEEL AHMED., ADVOCATES [ABSENT])
AND:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 144647 of 2020
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is called, the petitioner is not represented. When the matter is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed before the Addl. Registrar (Judicial) on 07.06.2022, on that day, three weeks time was granted for compliance. Thereafter, the petition was listed before the Court on several
dates and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the petition was listed on 08.07.2024, on that day, counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he would comply and rectify the objections during the course of the day. Despite granting time, office objections are not complied with.
The petition is listed today for orders regarding noncompliance of office objections for the sixth 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 2020. Now we are in the month of September 2024. The petition is pending for almost four years. As already noted above, when the matter is called, the petitioner is not represented. 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.: 25
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed despite non-compliance of office objections for the sixth time.
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution given the delay of almost four years.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA SULADAL
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI SUB DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590 001
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL DAM
ABDULKHADAR S/O. MOHAMAD SUBEDAR
IBRAHIM S/O. MOHAMMADHASHAM SUBEDAR
MUBARAK S/O. ALLABAX SUBEDAR
JYOTI MULIMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
