Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35410 (KAR)

GOWRI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/29139/2023 · 2025-01-28

R Devdas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3745 WP No. 29139 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.29139 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. GOWRI D/O MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563119 2. KUMAR S/O LATE SOLOMON, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO 46, ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR 5631196 3. SAROJAMMA D/O CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT KENNEDYS TELUGU LINE, OORGAUM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563120 4. RAVI KUMAR S/O YESUPADAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563119 5. JAYA PRAKASHAM S/O YESUPADAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KENNEDYS TELUGU LINE, OORGAUM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563120 Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3745 WP No. 29139 of 2023 6. DEVIKA PADMAVATHI W/O PENCHILAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO 647, OFFICE QUARTERS, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563119 7. ASHOK VARUN S/O R BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO 74, ABOVE BAZAAR BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563119 8. ANU W/O JOHN DAVID, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NEW MODEL HOUSE, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563119 9. VICTOR BABU S/O ROSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563119 10. NAGARAJ S/O LATE RAMU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KENNEDYS TELUGU LINE, OORGAUM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563120 11. DILIP KUMAR S/O DAVID, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT SUBEDAR QUARTERS, PUNJABI LINE, OORGAUM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563120 12. SONI D/O PAULRAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3745 WP No. 29139 of 2023 R/AT KENNEDYS TELUGU LINE, OORGAUM POST, KGF, KOLAR 563120 13. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O LATE DEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NEW MODEL HOUSE, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563119 14. JOHNSON S/O JOHN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563119 15. SUSHEELA RANI D/O LATE JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO 81, TELUGU SCHOOL, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563119 16. BABU S/O CHINNAPPA, GED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563119 17. PHILIPS S/O NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563119 18. SALOMI W/O LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3745 WP No. 29139 of 2023 R/AT ANDHRA BLOCK, MARIKUPPAM POST, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT 563119 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE SAFAI KARMACHARI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OFFICE AT SAIRA BAG NO 19/4, 3RD FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560052 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE SAFAI KARMACHARI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KOLAR DISTRICT 563101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD 24.03.2023 PASSED BY R1 ANNEXURE-J ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE R2 AND 3 TO DISBURSE THE AMOUNT WHICH IS SANCTION UNDER THE ORDER DTD 11.06.2018 ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE R2 AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO STAY THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD 24.03.2023 ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY R1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3745 WP No. 29139 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo stating that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the respondents No.2 and 3 have assured that they would sanction Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards the rehabilitation of the petitioners and in view of the assurance given by the respondents, the petitioners do not press the writ petition. 2. The memo is placed on record, subject to all just exceptions. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL