IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 30th of May, 2017 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1671 OF 2016 (GM–RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.SUBRAMANI S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O.No.164, KATIGANAHALLI ATTIBELE HOBLI, CHANDRAPURA CIRCLE ANEKAL TALUK-562 106 BANGALORE RURAL ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI.K.S.NANDISH BABU, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
1. Dr.G.S.SHIVANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS ORTHOPAEDIST AND RETIRED ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER NOW R/AT.DHARMAPURA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK-572 143 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 2. SRI.VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN- 577 501 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 4. ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL PAVAGADA TALUK-561 202 TUMKUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.V.SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENTS NOS.3 & 4) THE WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 10660/2011 DATED 3/2/2015.
THE WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This matter was dismissed for default on November 10, 2016.
2. On March 21, 2017, on the prayer made by the learned advocate for the appellant, the application for condonation of delay in filing the recalling application was allowed and the writ appeal was restored to its original file upon recalling of the order dated November 10, 2016.
3. Even today none appears for the appellant even in the second call. The writ appeal is, also, barred by limitation and the delay is of 474 days.
4. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed for default. Consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed for default.
5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2 of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
6. We, however, make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.