Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67562 (KAR)

SMT. VIMALA V P v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30362/2025 · 2025-11-06

Ashok S Kinagi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44846 WP No. 30362 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 30362 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIMALA V P W/O LATE D. MANI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT 36, 4TH CROSS AGS OFFICE LAY-OUT NEW BEL ROAD BANGALORE NORTH MSRIT BANGALORE-560054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADINARAYANAPPA., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT #105, 1st FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44846 WP No. 30362 of 2025 AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEALTH OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU. 4. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT EPIDEMIC DECEASES HOSPITAL COMPOUND OLD MADRAS ROAD BENGALURU-560038. …RESPONDENTS (BY MAINTENANCE. B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.DPN(1)CR/15/2023-24 DATED17/01/2025. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT 29/11/2023. ON AND FURTHER REPRESENTATION MADE ON DATED 21/01/2025 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- A TO C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44846 WP No. 30362 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal passed by respondent No.2, wherein the petitioner is a Government Servant. The impugned order passed by the respondent is appealable order. The petitioner without exhausting alternative efficacious remedy filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner has got the equal efficacious remedy i.e., an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate forum in the appropriate proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44846 WP No. 30362 of 2025 4. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the Annexures after retaining the photocopy of the same. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB