Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67023 (KAR)

SRI V NARAYANA @ NARAYANAPPA v. SRI N H BHASKAR REDDY

WP/7182/2014 · 2025-12-02

S Sunil Dutt Yadav

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50423 WP No. 7182 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7182 OF 2014 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. V. NARAYANA @ NARAYANAPPA S/O. VENKATARAMU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT YELLAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE DODDA HAGADE DHAKALE KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TAUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V NARAYANA @ NARAYANAPPA, ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI. N H BHASKAR REDDY S/O N H P SHIVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 672, 17TH ‘C’ MAIN 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034. 2. SRI. GURUMURHY REDDY S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NERALURU VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50423 WP No. 7182 of 2014 ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE K G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP FOR R3 & R4; R1 IS SERVED; SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING PROPOSED R5 ON I.A.1/24) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTRICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN SC.ST(A)/19/2012-13 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 07.12.13, PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50423 WP No. 7182 of 2014 ORAL ORDER 1. It is noticed that the memo of retirement of earlier counsel was accepted and the name of the petitioner was shown in the cause list. There are no steps taken for representation on behalf of the said parties in this petition, as well as in W.P No.7184/2014. 2. In light of the same, while noticing that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings and despite the matter being of the year 2014, there is no representation by learned counsel, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Pending I.A’s are disposed of as not calling for adjudication in light of dismissal of the petition. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0