Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60648 (KAR)

RAMESH S/O BHEEMAPPA TAKKALKI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/103900/2024 · 2025-09-24

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13116 WP No. 103900 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103900 OF 2024 (S-REG) BETWEEN: RAMESH S/O. BHEEMAPPA TAKKALKI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. GROUP “D” N.A. MUTHANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, DHARWAD, R/O. “BHEEMASHANKAR NILAYA”, MADHUKAR CHAWL, 2ND CROSS, NEAR POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH B.CHIGARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT’S ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, POLICE SERVICE-1, DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE , CHIEF OFFICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. N. A MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR, GENERAL POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13116 WP No. 103900 of 2024 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580007. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.09.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT TO NO.HD 47 POCA 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-W. B. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER WITH BENEFITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Despite the order dated 11.09.2025, office objections have not been complied with. 2. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 3. The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM, CT: UMD List No.: 3 Sl No.: 68