Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Channappa vs Union Of India And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|04 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH Writ Petition No.26302 of 2015 (GM-MM-S) and Writ Petition Nos.29412 to 29416 of 2015 Between:
Channappa S/o Shankarappa Malladad Aged about 45 years Residing at Kallihal Village Tq. Haveri, District Haveri – 581 110 ... Petitioner (By Sri.Ashish Krupakar, Advocate - permitted to retire from the case vide court order dated 18.1.2016 Sri.Channappa S. Malladad – petitioner-in-person - absent) And:
1. Union of India Represented by its Economic Adviser & Revisionary Authority Ministry of Mines Shastry Bhavan New Delhi – 110 001 2. State of Karnataka R/by its Secretary to the Department of Commerce & Industry M.S.Building Bangalore – 560 001 3. The Director of Mines & Geology No.49, Khanija Bhavan Race Course Road Bangalore – 560 001 4. Senior Geologist Department of Mines & Geology Magavi Chambers, P.B. Road Haveri – 581 110 ... Respondents (By Sri.Y.H.Vijay Kumar, Additional Government Advocate) ---
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17.3.2015 issued by the respondent No.1 in revision application vide Annexure-AB to the writ petition and etc.
These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Acting Chief Justice made the following:
ORDER Mr.Ashish Krupakar, learned advocate, appears and submits that the writ petitioner has taken away the papers from him and he has issued an endorsement of no objection in a fresh vakalathnama, enabling the writ petitioner to engage a new advocate. He prays for leave to retire from this case.
2. As prayed for, he is permitted to retire from this case.
3. The matter is called out for hearing. None appears. No accommodation is prayed for.
4. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed for default.
5. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and this is, also, disposed of.
We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Channappa vs Union Of India And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
04 January, 2019
Judges
  • Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
  • Ravi Malimath