Dismissed¶31

Sri Rajakumar v. the State of Karnatak a

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025WP/7795/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections (scrutiny); Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice Jyoti Mulimani; W.P. No. 7795 of 2023 (GM-KEB); Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; petitioner absent/unrepresented; BESCOM – Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.; State of Karnataka Department of Ministry of Energy; default dismissal practice; interim order discharged; interlocutory applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections, the Court observing that it appears the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. ¶31

Sri Rajakumar Vs the State of Karnatak a — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19686 WP No. 7795 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 7795 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAJAKUMAR S/O SRI. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.24, KOTHOHALLI NARASIPURA VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 130.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GOPI.P.M., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY OF ENERGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 130.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (V), OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT UNIT, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., CHANDRAPPA CIRCLE, TAVAREKERE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:19686 WP No. 7795 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 130.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. LOKESHA MURTHY.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. RANSA VASANTHI.D.L., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

When the case is called, the petitioner is not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.

¶26

The petition is listed today for orders regarding non compliance of office objections (scrutiny).

¶27

As could be seen from the writ papers, the petition is filed on 05.04.2023 and the office has raised objections on 06.04.2023. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed before the Court on 17.04.2023, on that day, two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the petition was listed on 09.01.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19686 WP No. 7795 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

However, a week's time was granted to remove office objections.

¶31

The petition is listed today. It's been two years. So far, the office objections are not removed. As already noted above, when the case is called, the petitioner is not represented. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.

¶32

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶33

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶34

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Rajakumar v. the State of Karnatak a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajakumar v. the State of Karnatak a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar H K Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Smt. Jayalakshmi Vs Smt.Lakshmidevi

M/S Mct Cards and Technology Private Limited Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri.Ashwathnarayana Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Anjanappa Vs Muniyellappa

Vijayalakshmi Hydro Power P Ltd. Vs Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited