01Facts
Fifty student-petitioners filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a writ directing the second respondent to consider their representation dated 11 February 2025.
p. 6At the hearing, their counsel submitted that the petition had become infructuous.
p. 702Issues
i.Whether the petitioners’ request for consideration of their representation required adjudication, given counsel’s submission that the petition had become infructuous.
p. 703Law Applied
The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, including the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and power to issue a writ of mandamus.
p. 6The Court did not cite or apply any substantive statutory provision, precedent, or legal doctrine in deciding the petition.
p. 704Reasoning
The Court relied on petitioners’ counsel’s submission that the petition had become infructuous.
p. 7It did not examine the merits of the request for consideration of the representation or give reasons concerning the underlying dispute.
p. 705Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous, on the basis of counsel’s submission.
p. 7The Court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous, on the basis of counsel’s submission.
p. 7Original Court PDF
AJIT KUMAR MEENAvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
