Shri M K Kamal Kumar vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8231 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                          PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

              W.A. NO.278 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)
                           IN
              W.P.No.1937 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. M.K. KAMAL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
VICE PRESIDENT
BHARAT SEVA DALA
R/AT NO.783, 19TH CROSS
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
HASSAN 573201.
                                       ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. RANJITH K.S. ADV., (ABSENT))


AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       VIKASA SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE 560001.

2.     THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND
       ALSO THE DEPUTY REGISTRATION
       OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
       4TH DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN
       DISTRICT SAHAKARA SOUDHA
                                 2



     3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS
     MALLESHWARAM
     BANGALORE 560003.

3.   BHARAT SEVA DALA
     (SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
     SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT OF 1960)
     KUMARA KRUPA ROAD,
     BENGALURU 560001
     REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY.

                                                   ... RESPONDENTS
                               ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER

DATED 16/02/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN

WRIT PETITION NO.1937/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL.

GRANT SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL AND FURTHER RELIEFS.


      THIS   W.A.   COMING     ON    FOR   ORDERS,        THIS   DAY,

ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                             JUDGMENT

None had appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Therefore, this Court had directed to issue Court notice. The

aforesaid notice is duly served on the appellant. However,

none had appeared even today. It appears that the appellant

is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV