Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21733 (KAR)

J R RAKESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/4289/2017 · 2025-03-19

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12165 WP No. 4289 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4289 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: J.R.RAKESH S/O RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NO.221, FARM HOUSE ALIPURA VILLAGE, THONDEBAVI HOBLI GAURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560001 2. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION 6TH & 7TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS NO.9/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560001 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, C, O & M CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPUR - 571112 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI.B.N.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND 4 SRI.RAKESH B.BHATT., ADVOCATE FOR R4) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12165 WP No. 4289 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATIONS DATED 16.9.2016 BEARING NO.KA.NI.IM(V)/SAKANIEEM(KA)/TA.SA-3/2015-16/2785-86 VIDE ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY R-4 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. learned AGA has entered appearance for the respondent No.1. Hence, registry is directed to delete the name of learned HCGP as that appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. Despite the order dated 4.3.2025, none appears for the petitioner today also. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter, there being no appearance for the petitioner on earlier occasions also. Hence, the petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR