Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 80100 (KAR)

SMT RADHA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/3576/2025 · 2025-07-10

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26359 WP No. 3576 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. RADHA, W/O RAVINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT PUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHRUVA KUMARA D N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPERESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, 3RD FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26359 WP No. 3576 of 2025 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA – 571 401. 5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PANDAVAPURA SUB –DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT. 6. THE UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5; SRI.T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.SAN141/C-10/XSN/14/2024-25 DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – A AND ET.C, THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26359 WP No. 3576 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Despite the order dated 13.06.2025, office objections have not been complied with. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 2. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45