- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28688 WP No. 5456 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 5456 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. BHARATHI W/O LATE SRINIVAS R., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, N.M. LANE, COTTONPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAKET BISANI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. RANGASWAMY F/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. NO.1, GROUND FLOOR, N.M. LANE, COTTONPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053. 2. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. NO.1, GROUND FLOOR, N.M. LANE, COTTONPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053. 3. PRAKASHA S/O. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. NO.27, 1ST FLOOR, H CROSS, BEHIND K.V.V. SCHOOL, SUBBANNA GARDEN, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28688 WP No. 5456 of 2024 4. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI R. W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.214, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, SHAKAMBARINAGAR, J. P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, N.M. LANE, COTTONPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053. 6. SMT. SUMITHRA W/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, N.M. LANE, COTTONPET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-2, AT BENGALURU TO DISPOSE THE CASE WITHIN A PERIOD OUTER LIMIT OF 89 WEEKS, BY TAKING THE MATTER ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, IN C.MISC.NO.101 OF 2023 PENDING BEFORE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-2, AT BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28688 WP No. 5456 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The RPFC is of the year 2024. Till now, no steps are taken for issuance of notice to the respondents. 2. When the matter was listed on 8.7.2025, the petitioner has failed to comply the order dated 18.3.2024 and there is no representation on behalf of petitioner on that day also, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for 'dismissal'. 3. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 108