HUGAR SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE HUGAR v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
WP/146349/2020 · 2025-03-04
M G Uma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44096 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44096 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4195 WP No. 146349 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 146349 OF 2020 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN:
1.
HUGAR SHANTHAMMA W/O. LATE HUGAR MALLIKARJUN, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RAMANAGARA, H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
2.
HUGAR SHYAMALA D/O. LATE HUGAR MALLIKARJUN W/O. HUGAR SHANKAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RAMANAGARA, H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
3.
HUGAR MAMTHA D/O. LATE HUGAR MALLIKARJUN, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RAMANAGARA, H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
4.
HUGAR POORNIMA D/O. LATE HUGAR MALLIKARJUN, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RAMANAGARA, H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.H.MITTALKOD AND SRI. V.S. KOUJALAGI, ADV - ABSENT)
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4195 WP No. 146349 of 2020
AND:
1.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI.
2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSPET, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.
3.
THE THASILDAR, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
-------
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.KAM/BHUPA/42A/2013- 13 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4195 WP No. 146349 of 2020
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. No representation.
The petition is of the year 2020. Several objections were raised by the office, and many of them remained un-complied till date. As per the office note, the office objections at Sl.Nos.18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32 and 35 are not complied with. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Hence, the petition is dismissed for default i.e. for Non-prosecution.
Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE
MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20