UMARFAROOQ JAMADAR S/O MEHABOOBSAB v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/103097/2022 · 2025-03-21
Jyoti Mulimani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6078 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6078 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5207 WP No. 103097 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103097 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
UMARFAROOQ JAMADAR S/O MEHABOOBSAB, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. NILL, R/O. PENDAR MOHALLA, BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N.MULIMANI., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2.
DIRECTOR (ADM AND HR), KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3.
THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012. …RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5207 WP No. 103097 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
When the case is called, the petitioner is not represented, either personally or through video conferencing. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the petition was listed on 11.03.2025, on that day, finally a week’s time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the office was directed to list the petition under the caption ‘for dismissal of petition for non- compliance of office objections’ on 21.03.2025.
The petition is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of petition for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite granting sufficient time, the petitioner has not complied with the office objections. As already noted above, when the case is called, the petitioner is not represented. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. In
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5207 WP No. 103097 of 2022
view of peremptory order dated 11.03.2025, the petition is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and also for non-prosecution.
Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46