- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:865-DB WA No. 100024 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100024 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: LAKKAPPA NILAPPA HURAKANNAVAR, S/O. NILAPPA HURAKANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT. MUDENUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAMDURG TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM-591123. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASANNAKUMAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE CHIEF, SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KALABURGI-585201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.107603/2024 (GM-POLICE) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.107603/2024 DATED 20/12/2024 AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:865-DB WA No. 100024 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This writ appeal is as against the writ Court’s order dated 20.12.2024 in W.P. No.107603/2024. The writ Court by this order has rejected the appellant’s writ petition for directions to the second respondent to release his son, who is convicted, on parole for 90 days for the period between 14.12.2024 and 12.03.2025. The writ Court has dismissed the petition but imposing the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by this imposition of cost. The appellant’s writ petition is dismissed essentially on the ground that a similar petition filed by him with the Bench in Kalaburagi for release of the son on parole for the same period is allowed and nevertheless, the present petition is filed. The reason for imposition of cost can also examined in view of certain peculiar circumstances. Sri Prasanna - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:865-DB WA No. 100024 of 2025 Kumar P. Daroji, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant who is aged 78 yeas has sought for his son’s release on parole for medical reasons and he is not in a position to pay the cost. Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, is heard in the light of the appellant’s grievance and the reasons offered. This Court must infer that, given the appellant’s circumstances, the cost will be onerous and places the appellant in a disadvantageous position. Hence, taking a lenient view, the appeal is disposed of modifying the direction to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE VMB/ct-vg List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10