Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22460 (KAR)

VIMALARITHA @ REETHA v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/11134/2025 · 2025-04-26

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17398 WP No. 11134 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11134 OF 2025 (SCST-) BETWEEN: 1. VIMALARITHA @ REETHA D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. VANARASHMI @ RASHMI, D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (BOTH ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU) PRESENTLY BOTH ARE R/A, C/O THOMAS RICHARD, BETTALURU, SSMP POST, TUMKUR - 572 107. 3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT T. DASARAHALLI, NEAR VIDEO BUS STOP, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS NAR CIC COLONY, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR M, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17398 WP No. 11134 of 2025 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 500 001. 3. SRI. CHIKKANARASAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 162. 4. SRI. S. G. SRINIVASA, S/O. GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT VIDYANAGAR, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. DIRECT THE R-1 TO TRACE THE FILE AND PASS ORDERS AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL IN PTCL NO. 47/2019 AT ANNX-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17398 WP No. 11134 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Call for records. b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to trace the file and pass orders and dispose off the Appeal in PTCL No.47/2019 at Annexure-A, pending on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore within a period of two months. c. Grant such other relief/s as this Court Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.47 of 2019, which is still pending consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. It is rather shocking that an appeal has been pending from the year 2019 allegedly on the ground that the file has not been traced. If the file was not traceable, it was required that the file be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17398 WP No. 11134 of 2025 rebuilt and the matter proceeded with, rather for the matter to be adjourned indefinitely. 3. On enquiry with the learned AGA as to whether all the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under the PTCL Act are being uploaded onto the website of the respective authorities and a similar system as that maintained by the quasi judicial authorities of the Revenue Department has been implemented under the PTCL Act. The learned AGA submits that the same has not been done. 4. In that view of the matter, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and the Principal Secretary, E- Commerce Department are directed to implement a similar system as done for Revue Court Case Management System, for all quasi judicial authorities coming under the Revenue Department, including the authorities under the PTCL Act and submit a report thereof, within a period of six weeks from now. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17398 WP No. 11134 of 2025 5. In view of the above, the appeal having been pending for the last six years, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. A mandamus is issued directing Respondent No.1 to either get the file traced out or rebuild the file and proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible. iii. Though the above petition is disposed, re-list on 15.07.2025 to report compliance with general directions in para 3 and 4 above. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE DH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK