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

Kalasevasangha Pratishthana vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|16 October, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.36329/2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Kalasevasangha Pratishthana, Ajjampura Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, Represented by its Secretary, Sri.Girish, S/o Late Krishnoji Rao, Aged about 49 years, Residing at Banashankari Road, Chikkamagaluru District – 577547.
(By Sri.Chandrashekar.L, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Panchayath Raj, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru – 01.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Chikkamagaluru Zilla Panchayath, Chikkamagaluru District – 577101.
3. The Executive Officer, …Petitioner Tarikere Taluk Panchayath, Tarikere – 577228.
4. Panchayath Development Officer, Ajjampura Panchayath, Ajjampura – 577547.
5. President, Ajjampura Gram Panchayath, Ajjampura Village, Represented by its Secretary – 577547.
...Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari as illegal, passed by the R-3, bearing dispute application No.19/2014-15 dated 15.09.2016 produced at Annexure-A.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R As per the order dated 17.06.2019, recording that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Two weeks time was granted as a last opportunity for removal of office objections on 18.01.2018. Matter was subsequently posted on 17.06.2019, but, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Time was granted till the end of the day for compliance of office objections, failing which, the writ petition will stand dismissed.
2. Matter listed once again on this day and in the first round when the matter was called out there was no representation. Subsequently, when the matter was called out once again in the post lunch, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
3. As the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings, petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS
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

Kalasevasangha Pratishthana vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
16 October, 2019
Judges
  • S Sunil Dutt Yadav