IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.37003 OF 2011(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
MATADHIPATHI ‘SIDHASHRAMA’, KONAJEKALLU, PADUKONAJE, MOODABIDRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY SRI DINAKAR ... PETITIONER (BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY-ABSENT) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
4. TAHSILDAR MOODABIDRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
5. “SRI SHARADADAS SWAMY SIDDASHRAMA”, HOWDAL POST, PADUKONAJE, MOODABIDRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI K.SUNDARA HEGDE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI PRAKASH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 15.3.2011 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 9.8.2011 PASSED BY R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER A memo of retirement is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The memo does not even contain the acknowledgement of the petitioner with regard to retirement. Hence, the memo is rejected.
2. None appears for the petitioner nor any representation is made even though the matter was called on two occasions. This petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-