Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23628 (KAR)

SRI. S. V. NAGARAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/24065/2023 · 2026-06-19

B M Shyam Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30493 WP No. 24065 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24065 OF 2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. S. V. NAGARAJ S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBBA REDDY K N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYATA, SIDLAGHATTA TALUKA, SIDLAGHATTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 105. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30493 WP No. 24065 of 2023 3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANDIGANALA GRAM PANCHAYAT, SIDLAGHATHA TALUK, SIDHLAGHATTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 102. 4. SRI. DEVARAJ S/O. DODDAJUNGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESIDENT SDMC COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 105. 5. SRI. H. R. CHOWDAIAH S/O. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOPPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A BEARING V.P.C NO. 07/2022-23 DATED 24/08/2023 PASSED BY THE R-2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30493 WP No. 24065 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This Court’s previous order on 04.06.2026 reads as under: “None appears for the petitioner and to afford another opportunity before the petition could be considered for dismissal, the office is directed to re-list this petition on 19.06.2026.” None appears for the petitioner even today. This Court can only infer lack of interest and hence, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr