Karnataka High Court
WA/1404/2021 of SRI.DINESH V PAI Vs THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER on 29 December 2021
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT APPEAL NO.1404 OF 2021(C) BETWEEN: SRI.DINESH V. PAI, S/O SRI VISHNU N PAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT P
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO.1404 OF 2021(C)
BETWEEN:
SRI.DINESH V. PAI, S/O SRI VISHNU N PAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT P R EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 002.
(BY SRI. SANDESH C R, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. JAYARAJ D S, ADVOCATE)
...APPELLANT
AND:
1.THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, 2[ND] FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 2[ND] FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 004. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 004.
3.M/S ARUNA THEATRE, DOOR NO.87/1, P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI K S RUDRA BASAVARAJU. DOOR NO.87/1, P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI K S RUDRA BASAVARAJU.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.18575/2021(C) IN NOT CONSIDERING OR RECORDING
THE SUBMISSIONS MADE REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED EARLIER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court appeal lays a challenge to the judgment & order dated 03.12.2021 whereby appellant’s writ petition No. 18575/2021 (C) has been disposed off on 03.12.2021 with the reasoning as specified in paragraph no.8 thereof, which reads as under:
“8. When the petitioner is provided with appeal remedy under the Cinema Regulation, it is appropriate for the petitioner to prosecute the appeal already filed by the petitioner before the 1[st] respondent. It is also settled position of law that no person can institute parallel proceedings on the same cause of action. It is stated that the appeal is listed before the 1[st]appellate authority on 07.12.2021. Therefore, with liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal already filed before the 1[st] respondent, the present writ petition is disposed of, leaving open all the contentions of both the parties.”
2. We are in full agreement with the reasoning of the learned single judge and therefore, this intra-Court appeal by its very nature being restrictive in scope does not merit admission. Writ appeal therefore is accordingly dismissed costs having been made easy.
However, this order shall not come in the way of appellant making an appropriate application before the appellate authority for the grant of interim reprieve in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
Bsv