Bheemanna Shirageri v. State of Karnataka
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Oct 2011
- Bench
- N KUMAR, H S KEMPANNA
Outcome
Disposed of
“Hence, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. It is clarified as under: “Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the Circuit Bench at Gulbarga”. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SA
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.3158/2012 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: Bheemanna Shirageri S/o. Late Ghalappa Aged about 54 years Earlier working as Junior Engineer Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division No.2, Kustagi – 584 121 Raichur District Since dismissed from service Residing at house No.16, Shivanagar North side, Bidar – 585 401. (By Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, Adv.,) AND: … Petitioner State of Karnataka By its Principal Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore – 560 001 …Respondent 2 This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India praying to quash annexure-A dated 19.10.2011 in application No.6962/2006 on the file of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. This petition coming on for being spoken to this day, N. Kumar J., made the following:- ORDER One of the office objection raised is when there is a provision to file this petition in Gulbarga Circuit Bench, why the petition wants to prosecute in this Bench.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client wants to prosecute the matter in Circuit Bench, Gulbarga. Hence, papers are returned to enable the petitioner to prefer the writ petition before the Circuit Bench at Gulbarga.
Today, this matter is listed for ‘being spoken to’. The clarification sought for is, whether the case is disposed of by the order dated 23.05.2012 or not. In fact, the case was disposed of on that day, but the word ‘disposed of’ is not mentioned. Therefore, it is listed today for clarification. 3
Operative part
It is clarified as under: “Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the Circuit Bench at Gulbarga”. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SA
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: “Hence, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 19 Oct 2011. The bench was N KUMAR, H S KEMPANNA.
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.