01Facts
The 50 petitioners sought a direction for consideration of their representation dated 12 February 2025.
p. 6The petition had been listed for non-compliance with office objections.
p. 7On 18 September 2026, the Court granted a final extension until 29 October 2026 and directed that the matter be listed for dismissal if the objections remained unaddressed.
p. 7The objections were not complied with.
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed when the petitioners failed to comply with office objections despite being granted a final opportunity.
p. 703Law Applied
The Court applied the procedural requirement that office objections be complied with for a petition to proceed.
p. 7It had previously granted a final opportunity and specified that non-compliance would result in the matter being listed for dismissal.
p. 7No statute, precedent, or substantive legal principle was discussed in the order.
p. 704Reasoning
The Court noted that sufficient time had been granted, including a final extension, but the office objections remained unaddressed.
p. 7It therefore enforced the consequence previously indicated and dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, without considering the merits of the requested direction to consider the representation.
pp. 6–705Holding
The writ petition was dismissed for non-compliance with office objections.
p. 7The Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ request for consideration of their representation on its merits.
pp. 6–7Original Court PDF
AJAY KUMARvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
