1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 3"? day of November 2010 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF " AND V _ THE HONBLE MR.JUSTiCE,,A.S.BDPA1'«Ei\iAVV"= w.P.No.15742/201;; (CrpMg%EOVR} 'V V' VV BETWEEN : 1. PJS Overseas Limited _ vv A Company incorporated under_Cornpany._Act E its Reg. Off. At, No.50.1&60.1',"' -A 5th Floor, D--I\/Iail Pitarié.pu;--ra, 3 Netaji Subhash P1ace,VV V a _ -. Dist. Center, Wazirpuyr, _I}e1hi__-- 1 ,1 0088 ALSO having i'i;s- Brariclip Office .at"N'o--.--161 MLA Lay0'UVt,.__ R~-..Tf;VNagar_, "i3angaiore--560032. Rep. by Co-t)i.:dinator.VV'i\2ir,g Mangaldas Kamat V -- V V V = Petitioner AND : V V V V 1. The DepiityVVCon.serVVatC)r of Forests Kfarwar Division V """ "V 2:. V V'1'heeV'Raii.g'e.VI<'orest Officer _ "-VBell"ekVeri, Ankola Taluk A Karwar,' Uttar Kannada Distirct 3. Conservator ' sri.R.s.Ko11e, AGA} A' ;Be11e-keri Port, Ankoia Taluk Karwar, Uttar Kannada Distirct V ' Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to release 16,000 MT of iron ores belonging to the petitioner. seized by the respondents and kept in the custody of the 3rd respondent, at Bilekere port, as per seizure report vide Annexure J to this petition and etc... 2 This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, Chief Justice made the following: ORDER
J.S.KHEI-LAR, C.J. (Ora!) :
The petitioner has moved an application a.
to Withdraw the instant Writ pet:’i_ti01f1A.aA.This.’plrayer::’-made
at the hands of the petition_er._hasl’be’en
State Government, by filing a_:s’t.a_ten1ent’oflobjections.
2. During the lc’ourse–_ -learned counsel
for the respondents invited’ our.”»atte11tio’nllto the decision
rendered Patil vs.
marinaraaiaaaaatogmaaaa others (AIR 1987 so
294) and attention to the observations
recorded paAragraphl3.6 thereof. Paragraph 36 relied
. itlielll’learnedmcounsel for the respondents is being
A e:-rtractedyv hereunder;
allegations made in the petition disclose a
lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier
. universities of India. The petitioner might have
” moved in his private interest but enquiry into the
‘ 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 be 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 the
administration of justice. ‘
3. During the course of hearing, learned’-co.u:,1is.el«p
for the respondents could not invite our _attenftioii.,:toAany ‘A V. ‘V
basis for prejudice, that would ,-be? caused the
respondents consequent .*upon the vlibe’rty,,.,_VtVo thesis.
petitioner to withdraw th_e””-..:i1’is»tant” ~ fiipetition.
Needless to mention, that_ Aa–_pe;titio’ner;’who approaches a
Court, is /\1d has an
unquestioriahlep _.the said claim. by
it Ii1″t1’i;at sense of the matter,
the pra_,yer of the petitioner to
Withdrawxthe “instant_d’\m*’it petition, must be inferred to
-‘”~.,,_bexlofi’—the claim raised by the petitioner
V’ thi’o”ugh. ‘ ins-tant Writ petition.
find no justifiable reason whatsoever, in
oft” the factual position noticed herein–aboVe, to
.’ c:¢¢1nie 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 petition
4
wiil not w, in any manner be prejudicial to any claim of
the respondents. .j
sd¢= %
Chwflhfi@3X7
3fii§§
mV*
Index: Y/N