Disposed¶27

Vitthal Nagappa Khot v. the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025WP/86174/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15844 | High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad | WP No. 86174 of 2013 (S-RES) | Justice M. Nagaprasanna | 19-11-2025 | Keywords: HESCOM; Executive Engineer (Ele) O and M Division Chikkodi; disciplinary authority; superintending engineer; Vitthal Nagappa Khot; writ petition disposed as infructuous; retirement from service; pension appropriately settled; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; writ of certiorari; writ of mandamus; reimbursement of amounts deducted; Annexure-C; Annexure-D; Annexure-F; order dated 13.09.2013; notice dated 25.09.2013.

What did the court decide?

On the submission of learned counsel that the petitioner has retired from service and his pension is appropriately settled, the petition is disposed as having become infructuous. ¶27

Vitthal Nagappa Khot Vs the Executive Engineer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15844 WP No. 86174 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 86174 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VITTHAL NAGAPPA KHOT AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: KERUR, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA SURESH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM, CHIKKODI, BELGAUM.

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY HESCOM, CHIKKODI

¶12

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M DIVISION CIRCLE, HESCOM, CHIKKODI.

¶14

(BY SRI. B S KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶17

i) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2013 BEARING NO.CHI/KHA.NE.E (ELE)/ LE/SALE/ HI.SA(C)/5939-43 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND BEARING NO.CHI/KHA.NE.M(ELE)/LE/HI.SA(C)/6917-22 DATED 15.10.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15844 WP No. 86174 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 25.09.2013 BEARING NO.CHE/KHA.NE.A(ELE)/ KI.AA.SA/13-14/6300-03 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶22

iii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REIMBURSE ANY AMOUNT DEDUCTED IN PURSUANCE OF THE 13.09.2013 BEARING NO. CHI/KHA.NE.E(ELE)/LE/SALE/HI.SA(C)/5939-43 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND BEARING NO.CHI/KHA.NE.M(ELE)/ LE/HI.SA(C)/6917-22 DATED 15.11.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is rendered infructuous, for the reason that the petitioner has retired from service and his pension is appropriately settled.

¶27

In the light of the said submission, the petition is disposed as having become infructuous.

¶28

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶29

KGK CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Vitthal Nagappa Khot v. the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Nagappa Khot v. the Executive Engineer (Ele)

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

Sri. Vishnu S/O Maharudrappa Badiger Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Sheelabai W/O Manappa Pattar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Manappa Alias Manohar S/O Marudrappa Aliyas Maharudrappa Badiger (Since Deceased by His Lrs) Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sushma Vs the Director

Sri Parappa I Hulakund Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shinappa S/O Nanjappa Venkanavar Vs the Commissioner for Public Instructions