Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 90329 (KAR)

KUM K N MANGALAGOURI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/21699/2021 · 2025-07-16

S G Pandit, T M Nadaf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26464-DB WP No. 21699 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.21699 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: KUM. K.N.MANGALAGOURI D/O. LATE NANJUNDASWAMY.K.R., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KAGGERI POST AND VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571602. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATHA.S.JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26464-DB WP No. 21699 of 2021 2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, REP. BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2021 PASSED BY THE HON BLE KSAT IN A. NO. 248/2017 AND A. NO. 6714/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE - A, PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAME AS THE SAID ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16(1) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26464-DB WP No. 21699 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This writ petition was filed on 26.11.2021. Since then, office objections are not complied. By order dated 01.07.2025, finally two weeks time was granted to comply the office objections on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to the 'Advocates Welfare Fund'. But the cost has not been paid and office objections are not complied. 2. Learned counsel Sri. Ranganatha.S.Jois who appeared through video conference submits that there is no instruction from the client. 3. Taking note of the above submission, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE