Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28974 (KAR)

SRI YOGEESHA N H v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12689/2022 · 2026-07-14

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35986 WP No. 12689 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 12689 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI YOGEESHA N H S/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ADVOCATE, R/O GANDHINAGAR DHONIKHANA CHIKKAMAGALURU 573103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, (POLICE SERVICE B ) INTERNAL DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35986 WP No. 12689 of 2022 2. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 6th FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, KAVERI BHAVAN BENGALURU 560009 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU 577101 4. SRI. B BHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE, B.A BOBANNAGOWDA ADVOCATE, SPP., POCSO ( PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT) COURT COMPLEX, CHIKKAMAGALURU 577101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R3 SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.OE.174.PPE 2019 DTD 08.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 AND MOMENT ORDER BEARING NO. DPN.C.SHA.1.178.2014-15 DTD 04.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B. DIRECT THE R1 AND R2 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS SPP.,(POSCO) IN PLACE OF R4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35986 WP No. 12689 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo for withdrawal of the writ petition stating that the appointment of respondent No.4 as “SPP, POCSO, (Prosecution Department)” is challenged in this writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition he had completed his tenure. Hence, the writ petition does not survive for consideration. 2. The memo is placed on record. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE