IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.16309 OF 2017 (GM-CC) BETWEEN:
SMT RATHNAMMA W/O VELU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 693/A 3RD BLOCK CHAMARAJAPET KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TOWN & DISTRICT PIN 562101.
(By Mr. SUDHINDRA S A, ADV.(ABSENT)) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560001.
3. THE PRESIDENT CASTE AND VERIFICATION COMMITTEE AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR – 562101.
4. SMT VENKATLAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS … PETITIONER RESIDING AT BOODIHALLA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 560 085.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. C JAGADEESH, SPL COUNSEL FOR R-1 TO 3 Mr. VIJAYASIMHA REDDY D V, ADV. FOR R-4) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN APPEAL NO.4/2016-17 DTD. 7.3.2017 VIDE ANNEX-K DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD.2.6.2016 VIDE ANNEX-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Mr.C.Jagdeesh, learned Special counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Vijayasimha Reddy D.V., learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.03.2017, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution. From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the primary ground to challenge the impugned order is the proceedings in appeal were fixed on 08.02.2007. On the aforesaid date, the appellate authority did not conduct the hearing and thereafter, the petitioner was informed that a separate notice would be sent to him. However, no notice was received by the petitioner and the appeal was dismissed on 07.03.2017.
3. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the petition duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient ground for quashment of the order dated 07.03.2017 is made out. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS