RUPA G v. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2026 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
1. RUPA G W/O LATE K.A. NARASIMHAHMURTHY AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS
2. KUMARI RITHEESHA N D/O LATE K.A. NARASIMHAHMURTHY AGE ABOUT 15 YEARS,
3. MASTER ROHITH. N S/O LATE K.A. NARASIMHAHMURTHY AGE ABOUT 13 YEARS, Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE RESIDING AT YALLAMPALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE 561 207 (SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER I.E.,D FIRST PETITIONER) (BY SMT.B.V.HEMALATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101 …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20647 WP No. 2356 of 2026 HC-KAR
THE MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY (KSLSA), BANGALORE FAMILY COURTS, SUDHAMA NAGAR BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI D.NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 20.11.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LOK-ADALATH ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 IN WP NO. 1394/2024 OR RECALL THE ORDER OF DISPOSAL DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition be dismissed has not pressed.
2. Submission is placed on record. The Writ Petition is dismissed has not pressed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.