IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W. P. No.173/2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN HARSH WARDHAN S/O SRI. MAHIDHAR YADAV AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR SECURITY OFFICER SEMI CONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED RESEARCH CENTRE (A UNIT OF SITAR) POST BOX NO.1640 PO. DRORAVANI NAGAR BANGALORE-560016. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. IZHAR AHMED-ADV) (ABSENT) AND 1. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (PERS) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE GENERAL SHASHASTRA SEEMA BAL EAST BLOCK-V, R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI-110066.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BLOCK-1, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SEMI CONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED RESEARCH CENTRE (A UNIT OF SITAR) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA POST BOX NO.1640 PO. DRORAVANI NAGAR BANGALORE-560016.
4. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED: 01.04.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-O AND DATED:12.04.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, WITHOUT PARAMETERS OF THE RULES OF LAW ON THE FACTS ON THE RECORDS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO JOIN HIS DUTY UNDER THE R-2 AND THE PERIOD OF ABSENCE MAY BE SETTLED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS PER LAWS WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Case is called out. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
2. On 16.3.2017, matter was listed before the Registrar Judicial. On that day also there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, a week’s time was granted for compliance. As there was no compliance within the time stipulated, matter was listed before the Court on 19.4.2017. On that day, time was granted till 31.5.2017 for compliance and ordered that failing to comply with the office objections, the matter be re-listed for dismissal.
3. Matter is listed today. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
4. This shows that the petitioners are disinterested in prosecuting the petition in spite of sufficient time being granted. Hence, as per the order dated 19.4.2017, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE rs