Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19896 (KAR)

MS SEETA JANNU BODEKAR v. THE KARWAR DISTRICT HOSPITAL

WP/6680/2020 · 2025-01-15

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1508 WP No. 6680 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 6680 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MS. SEETA JANNU BODEKAR AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN, MRS. SAVI JANNU BODEKAR, W/O MR. JANNUR BODEKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT GAOVATANA HOSAHALLI, YELLAPUR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 581 359. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MUNDKUR AARTI., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. THE KARWAR DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KARWAR - 581 301. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT. 2. THE KARWAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, M.G.ROAD, KARWAR - 581 301. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE YELLAPUR POLICE STATION, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 359. 4. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT COMPLEX, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1508 WP No. 6680 of 2020 M.G.ROAD, KARWAR - 581 301. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. THE KARNATAKA STATE INTEGRATED CHILD PROTECTION SOCIETY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 6. THE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE - 2, BALAKARA BALAMANDIRA, COURT ROAD, OPPOSITE ROTARY HOSPITAL, SIRSI - 581 401. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO 3 & R5 & 6; SMT. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Though matter called twice, the petitioner is not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. Sri.Manjunatha Rayappa., AGA for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt.B.V.Vidyulatha., counsel for respondent No.4 have appeared in person. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1508 WP No. 6680 of 2020 The petition is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections. As could be seen from the writ papers, the petition is filed in the year 2020 i.e., on 07.04.2020. The office has raised certain objections on 07.04.2020. The case was listed before the Court and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Despite granting sufficient time, office objections are not complied with. As already noted above, though matter called twice, the petitioner is not represented. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10