Karnataka High Court
Amrutesh N P vs High Court Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.14912 OF 2017 (GM-RES) PIL
BETWEEN:
AMRUTESH N.P.
S/O LATE M.C.PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
PRACTICING ADVOCATE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND R/AT NO.28 (103)
10TH MAIN ROAD
60 FEET ROAD
BEHIND AMBEDKER B.E.D. COLLEGE
J.C.NAGER, KURUBARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 086
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANJUNATH K.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
NEW DELHI - 110 001
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
-2-
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY
AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
5. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
NEW DELHI - 110 001
... RESPONDENTS
(SHRI P.B.ACHAPPA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
SHRI C.SHASHIKANTH, ASG FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO FOLLOW
THE LAW LAID IN NJAC CASE IN RECOMMENDING THE NAMES
TO THE POSTS OF HIGH COURT JUDGES AND DO THE SAME
AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN
WP(CIVIL) NO.375/2007 (DD: 17.12.2008) SHANTI BHUSHAN VS.
UOI AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF REGISTRAR GENERAL VS.
R.GANDHI AND OTHERS, 2014 (VOL.11) SCC 547, TO MEET
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tendered a memo of today's date seeking permission to withdraw the petition.
-3-
2. We have perused the writ petition filed in the nature of a public interest litigation. The only prayer made is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent (this Court) to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred in the prayer clause in respect of making recommendations to the posts of Judges of this Court.
3. The averments made in the petition show that firstly, there is no basis for seeking such a writ of mandamus. Secondly, there is no reason for the petitioner to presume that the first respondent will not follow the settled law. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the PIL and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB