1 Dated this the 8*" day of November PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEI-IAR, CHIEF A' AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 201.0 mi: HOIVBLE MRJUSTICE A.S.BO?_A:N--NA:.A_P.:" P W.P.NO. 1 5743/20 1 (GM--i~io'_R) _, -V BEEVVEEN : I. (By Sri B ' J--. Doddanavar Brothers _ _ A Partnership Firm incorp"ora'ted Under The Partnership ACt_,__1-9_32.._» Having its Regist€i'ed_ Offiee at, ' " Dodcianavar Comp'o_ui1_d=7, i V P' Near Fort, Belgaum A 2 Represented by its A 2. Mr. An1at,Sar110b£§t The Deputy Forests KarWar_VDivision,xKar.War 581 301 ~ ' 'Range "Forest Officer 2' Beliekeri, Ankola Taluk 2' '~ , VKarwa'r._ Uttar Kannada . i3i.s'L--:r_ic"i; A éonsewator 'Be'i1ekeri Port, Ankela Taluk, V " tKar'war, Uttar Kannada District (gym R.G. Kolle, AGA) ... Petitioner ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articies 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to release 31,000 Mt of iron ores belonging to the petitioner, seized by the respondents and kept in the custody of the R3, at Bilekere port, as per seizure report vide Annexure H to this petition and etc., j' 2 This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, Chief Justice made the following: ORDER
J.S.KHEHAR, C.-J. (Oral) :
The petitioner has moved an applicationftlesiring V’
to withdraw the instant writ ‘ his-:
at the hands of the petitioner has. been opposed’
State Government, by filing a”s_tat.ement of oibjecitions.
2. During the c’ot;irse”– learned counsel
for the respondents in’vit’ed¥ to the decision
rendered 1.. “in lllilqnlfjekar Patil vs.
Dr.Mcthes_liand others [AIR 1987 SC
294) aridpdrevv ‘ouitApoii’i.tedsattention to the observations
recorded inuparalglraplh 36 thereof. Paragraph 36 relied
onxubyfithelldearned counsel for the respondents is being
extracteéiv.here’i;inder;
allegations made in the petition disclose a
“l,arhentable state of affairs in one of the premier
universities of India. The petitioner might have
moved in his private interest but enquiry into the
A Conduct of the examiners of the Bombay
University in one of the highest medical degrees
was a matter of public interest. Such state of
affairs having been brought to the notice of the
court, it was the duty of the court to the public
that the truth and the validity of the allegations
made he inquired into. It was in furtherance of
public interest that an enquiry into the state of
affairs of public institution becomes necessary and
3
private litigation assumes the character of public
interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be
avoided if it is necessary and essential for-.pthe
administration of justice.
3. During the course of hearing,
for the respondents could not invite.ourI_atteiiition”to}ariyit 2
basis for prejudice, that would
respondents consequent’ tlifi. the”
petitioner to withdraw ptlievflindstant lllwritflgetitioii.
Needless to mention, approaches a
Court, is and has an
ixnquestic-‘ndablebilllV” the said claim, by
l sense of the matter,
the hands of the petitioner to
VVi’C1j_.(1raW4″fl’J¢V instant Viiiirit petition, must be inferred to
l be {withdrawal lofmthe claim raised by the petitioner
‘ Vth~rougl1_’titer-inistant writ petition.
.. We find no justifiable reason whatsoever, in
iview of the factual position noticed herein-above, to
‘decline the request made by the petitioner herein,
seeking liberty to withdraw the instant writ petition.
The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed as
withdrawn. As a matter of caution, we may also
observe, that the withdrawal of the instant writ petitiori