Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR Writ Petition No.63819/2010 (GM-Res) ... Petitioner BETWEEN: Basavaraj, Sb Shivalingappa Horatti, Age: 64 years, 0cc: Social Service, M.L.C., R/o Adaveshwar Sadan, Veman Beedi, Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. (By Sri. B.V.Somapur, Advocate) AND:
The State Of Kamataka Rep. By Its Principal Secretary. Education Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore.
The Commissioner Public Instruction Department. M.S.Building, Bangalore.
The Commissioner, Pre-University Education Department. Malleshwarm. Bangalore. :2:
The Additional Commissioner Public Instruction, College Road, Dharwad.
The Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Dharwad District, Dharwad.
The Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Karwar District, Karwar.
The Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Sirsi, Dist: Karwar (UK).
The Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Haved, Dist: Haved
The Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Gadag, Dist: Gadag
The Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Belgaum, Dist: Belgaum
The Deputy Director Of Public Instructions, Chikkodi, Dist: Belgaum. . . . Respondents (By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, Government Pleader) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ or certiorari quashing circular/letter respondent issued no.4 3 No G3(2)Vl Pa Chunavane’ ioo 2010 lated 2 Y0312010 v;d€ Annexure-A and also quashing Rule 25(C) of Rules 1999 of the Karnataka Education Act as unconstitutional and illegal and issue writ or mandamus directing the State to delete the Rule 25(1)(C’) of Rules 1999 01 Karnataka Fducatior, Act 1983 This writ petition coming on tor preliminary hedring th.s day the Court made the following ORDER Petitioner’s counsel is absent The elections are already onducted Hence the wnt petitior tands dismissed a having become infructuous t i the pe.titio c. to uest er.do, seme... in %re, f •e so ciaosec ‘Ca
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.