EVEN?HKHICOURTOFKARNAEMQAATBANGALORE
DATED TI-HS THE 157" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V. JAGANNATIIANj'__;' "
WRIT PETITION NO. 13726 OF 201Q,IS-RES}'~ 3
BETWEEN: E' E E V
SRI KUPPASWAMY, _
SON OF' LATE MR. RANGASWAMY.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ._ _
RESIDING AT SHIVANA SAMU____RA_ {B_LUF'F};« __
MALAVALLI TALUK, , - ' "
MANDYA DISTRICT. '-- I A ~
PETITIONER
[BY SR1 D. NAGARAJ,
AND:
1 . THE 'KARNATAKA POWER' TRANSMISSION
CORPORA'I'ION_ LIMITED,
CORPORATE vOI='FIGE:' CAUVERY BHAVAN,
ALORE.--.--, 560 . 009.
V-.REP.R.ESENTED"E'Y ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
E f"I'IIE'~CI'I-AM_U NDESIIWARI ELECTRICITY
._ S_jIIPPI;'_:i.COIx2IPAI\IY LIMITED,
I *
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER IELCI,
3. , THESUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IELEC},
POWER GENERATION DIVISION,
E "S'r'IlVANA SAMUDRA {BLUFF},
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),
POWER GENERATION DIVISION,
SI-IIVANA SAMUDRA (BLUFF),
MALAVALLI TALUK.
MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION " '
LIMITED, _ '1' 'V '
SI-IIVANA SAMUDRA (BLUFF),
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
(BY SR1 V.Y KUMAR, AJDV. FOR"R-:1 I
SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADV.' FOR I . * *
M /S S.N MURTHY ASSOC_IATES' P'O_F§.EE'RV}'§lv'&_'__5)
THIS WRI'F}_PE'I'lTI.ON IS FILEED UNDER ARTICLES 226
81 227I"Oi".CAT?:IE"(3ONSTI'1'UTI'ON' OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT TI-IE; .RE.SPO9NDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICATION' "PETITIONER SUBMITTED ON
24.3.08,' .__SEEKI'NG'» AARPOLINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUNDS-.._VDUE -TO.' THE UNTIMELY DEATH OF HIS
MOTH-ER VENKATAMMA VIDE ANN--C, IN LINE WITH
, A_ OR;D*ER§_IN WP. N'O...._.1._1302/O5 {S--RES).
A vTVi?*'E:I~'1TION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING--I'N GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
I:'OLLOWI~NO::. '
ORDER
The petitioner seeks direction to the respo-nrgients
to consider his application for appoinNt_1:nent}Vu. on
compassionate grounds following the untir’n.e1yjjdeath
his mother.
2. Learned counseI”‘vfor.the p’etitio”t1er’»;apparent V
to the ground urged Petitgion for the
aforesaid direction igjmade by Sri
Somashekar; ‘the: is that the 5″]
respoi1_de-nt vhas”‘V-eornnaun.ioa’ted the letter issued from
21%’ respo11_dter_1tVVio.’the iearned counsel for the petitioner
andfitdwvis at Anti-e.xure ‘R513′ to the memo filed by the 5%”
»r;espon.dent.yV referring to the said communication, it is
as there is no provision to appoint for a
seco11ddVt,inV1e on compassionate ground, the request of
V’ ~the”pet1t1oner was rejected by the 2*” respondent.
%
‘ ‘ ..resp<5ndent
3. Learned counsel Sri V.Y. Kumar for 13* a.nd
2nd respondents on his part submitted that in_’.theDli.ght
of the representation already being
decisions being taken to the effect e_that_–‘t’l”ie’ vnivsl”
not entitled for appointment on :con1’_pa.’ssilonate
the prayer sought in petition
infructuous.
4. Learned eoiinsel Svornashekar for the
petitionlerrCf¢rr1n§g3’tol”the 1.A§l’fi1éd by him for additional
documents in View of the additional
ground no”WV_’Vso11’ght”‘, direction can be issued to the
5,” View of the submission of the learned
Z for the parties and taking note of the
_ ‘communication which has been received by 5:11
respondent from 21″‘ respondent which communication
is also referred to in the additional ground urged by the
petitioner, the representation given by the pet-itioner
therefore, has been already consider_ed.l”rhfy–::
respondents and therefore, theppppprayerivr.-_ the
Writ Petition becomes infructuous;1″Though’~thelliearfied
counsel for the petitioner referred the _ordle1%fi};a.ss-ed by . if
this Court in W P No.118Q2ll[‘O.5″‘as -Annexure ‘D’,
since the present already become
infructuous, liberty .to.l:’fth_e ‘petitioner to make a
further t_h.el)Vasis of the order passed
nuthegbevevviiiwiigsoz/05.
.f’vvrn3P¢utnnii§cnsnussed.
ea/«~
FGEGE