Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48717 (KAR)

MAMATHA. M v. CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER

WA/971/2025 · 2026-01-05

D K Singh, S Rachaiah

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:60-DB WA No. 971 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. MAMATHA. M D/O MUNIRAJAPPA, AGE 32 YEARS R/AT SURAGAJAKKANAHALLI HAARAGADDE POST ANEKAL TALUK, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER BMTC CENTRAL OFFICES K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:60-DB WA No. 971 of 2025 2. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, SOUTH DIVISION/ZONE CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. 3. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, EAST DIVISION/ZONE CENTRAL OFFICES K.H.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 12624/2022 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:60-DB WA No. 971 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order passed by this Court in WP.No.12624/2022 (S-KSRTC) dated 19.06.2024. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the writ petition for the sake of their convenience. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed with a delay of 331 days, the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay discloses the reasons for not filing the appeal on time as mentioned in paragraph No.2, which is extracted here under: "I submit that, the writ petition was disposed on 19.06.2024. I am not aware the disposal of Writ petition. Further, I lost the Mobile phone, hence I could not contact my counsel. Further, I am suffering from 30% of blindness in my right eye. Due to loss of mobile phone, neither myself nor my counsel able to contact each other. However, in the month of June - 2025, I personally, contacted my counsel regarding the stage of the case. Where, I learnt that, the Writ Petition was dismissed in the month of June - 2024 itself. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:60-DB WA No. 971 of 2025 Immediately, steps having been taken to file this Appeal. Hence, there is a delay of 331 days in filing this Writ Appeal. Delay in filing the Writ Appeal is not an intentional, but for the bonafide reasons as stated above. The balance of connivance in my favour and ever likelihood of succeed on merits. Hence, I am filed an accompanying application seeking condonation of delay of 331 days in filing this appeal. No prejudice or hardship would be caused to the Respondent by allowing this application. If this application is not allowed, I will be put to great hardship and injury. 4. Thus, from the perusal of paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, it would be evident that the only ground which has been urged is that, the petitioner had lost her mobile phone and therefore, she could not get in contact with the counsel who represented her case before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, she could get hold of another mobile phone and contacted the counsel who represented her case and she got to know that the writ petition was dismissed in the month of June - 2024, itself. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:60-DB WA No. 971 of 2025 5. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay of 331 days are neither convincing nor bonafide nor sufficient. 6. Therefore, we dismiss this application seeking condonation of delay of 331 days in filing the writ appeal. Even on merit also we do not find that the learned Single Judge has erred either on facts or law. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9