Committee Of Management vs Sri Prathviraj Ajila
2022 Latest Caselaw 3864 Kant

                                1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                             PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                    W.A.No.1339/2021

BETWEEN:

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT
KAMPRABAIL AJAWARADAIVA,
BALTHILA BEEDU POST,
BALTHILA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK,
D K 574235,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT.
                                          ... APPELLANT
(By Sri Sachin.B.S., Adv.)

AND:

1 . SRI PRATHVIRAJ AJILA
    S/O JAYAKUMAR AJILA,
    AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
    R/A BALTHILABEEDU POST,
    BALTHILA VILLAGE,
    BANTWAL TALUK, D.K 574235.

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    HR AND CE,
    MANGALURU 575001.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    HR AND CE,
    MANGALURU 575001.
                                   2



4 . THE TAHASILDAR
    BANTWAL TALUK,
    BANTWAL D K 574153,
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

(By Smt. Vani.H., AGA.)


      This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order of
the learned single judge passed in WP No.18188/2021
dated 19.11.2021 to extent of continuing the interim order
for period of 3 weeks while dismissing the writ petition, in the
interest of justice and equity.


      This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
Alok Aradhe J., delivered the following:


                          JUDGMENT

1. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 19.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.18188/2021, by which the writ petition preferred by

respondent no.1 has been disposed of with liberty to

respondent no.1 to take recourse to the alternative remedy

and the interim order has been made operative for a period of

three weeks.

2. On perusal of the records, we find that the aforesaid

interim order which was granted for a limited period of three

weeks has already lost its efficacy on account of efflux of

time.

3. Therefore, at this point of time, nothing survives for

consideration in this appeal and the same is disposed of with

liberty to the appellant to revive this appeal in case

respondent no.1 files any proceedings against the appellant

for contempt of the interim order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK