Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20453 (KAR)

SUBROTO CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8858/2025 · 2026-06-09

M I Arun

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27428 WP No. 8858 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 8858 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SUBROTO CHAKRABORTY S/O MR. P.N. CHAKRABORTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS FLAT NO.K-641, SENA VIHAR KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD KALYAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK S., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION ROOM NO.618, 6TH FLOOR M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE URBAN ZONE-2 SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR MARGOSA ROAD, 8TH CROSS ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003 Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27428 WP No. 8858 of 2025 3. BRIGADIER DALEEP KURIEN GEORGE (RETD.) S/O SRI. T.G.GEORGE AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS CHIEF PROMOTER OF THE PROPOSED 'SENA VIHAR OWNERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY' PLOT NO.29, SENA VIHAR KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD KALYAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SMT. B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER NUMBERED JDgï©-2(45) /£ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ/µÉÃgÀÄ-EvÀgÉ/01/2024-25 DATED 02.01.2025 WHICH WAS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27428 WP No. 8858 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. None appears for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10