IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.49236/2016 & 49681/2016 (GM RES) BETWEEN:
1. REV. PROF. DR. HUBERT M WATSON THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE, BALMATTA, MANGALORE-575001.
2. DR. GLADSON JATHANNA, THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BALMATTA, MANGALORE-575001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF CHIEF MINISTER, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS MINISTRY, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA & CULTURAL ACTIVITIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. DR. HANNIBAL RICHARD CABRAL, PRINCIPAL, KARNATAKA THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE, BALMATTA, MANGALORE-575 001.
4. KARNATAKA THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, BALMATTA, MANGALORE - 575 001.
5. THE KARNATAKA CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BALMATTA, MANGALORE - 575 001.
6. THE KARNATAKA THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, BALMATTA, MANGALORE - 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADV. FOR R3 TO R6, SRI SAILESH S.K, ADV. FOR R5.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 & 2 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS NO.1 & 2 ON 17.08.2016 AND 25.08.2016 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEX-A AND B ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NEW SCHEMES PROPOSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE BUDGET FOR THE YEARS 2016-17 IN RESPECT OF RESEARCH ON CONTRIBUTION OF BASEL MISSIONARY TO KANNADA THROUGH THE R-4 KARNATAKA THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE VIDE ANNEX-C ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Sanathkumar Shetty, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6.
Mr.Sailesh.S.K, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matters are heard finally.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners, inter alia, seek for a writ of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the representations submitted by them.
3. When the matters were taken up for hearing, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that provision in the Budget was made for disbursement of the amount to respondents No.4 to 6. However, as per the instructions received by him from the Director, Department of Kannada and Cultural Activities, amount in question has not been disbursed to respondents No.4 to 6 as is evident from the communication dated 21.11.2016.
4. The aforesaid submission is taken on record.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing survives for adjudication in these petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may available to them in law, in case the grievance of the petitioners subsists.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.