LAWRENCE FERNANDES Vs. KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Mr. Lawrence Fernandes is a Social Worker. Ex-Mayor of the erstwhile Bangalore City Corporation (now Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) and a Tax Payer. He has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation questioning the competency of the Government of Karnataka in according sanction and release of certain amount under the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B from the budgetary allocation of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') to the students of 4th respondent University College of Law and the 5th respondent National Law School University of India who have represented India at the Phillip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition 1998 held at Washington D. C. between 29th March and 5th April 1998 and Model UN Summit held in New York, USA, from 8th to 12th July 1998. The principal ground on which the impugned orders are attacked is that the State Government has no power or authority to sanction or release the funds of the Authority and that the action and sanctioning of the funds is not for rendering "legal service" as provided under the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) ON behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 objections have been filed. After referring to the facts and circumstances under which the impugned orders have been passed, reliance is placed on S. 7 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the 'principal Act') which describes the duties and functions of the State Authority, Section 4 (k) and S. 16 (1) of the Act. Justifying the impugned action of the State Government, respondents 2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of 4th respondent it is stated that cheque for the amount sanctioned had been obtained and issued to the students who represented India and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed. In other words, the writ petition is sought to be dismissed on the ground that it has become infructuous.