PRATHIBA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the issues that arise for consideration in these two writ petitions are interrelated. The same shall therefore stand disposed of by this common order.

(2.) petitioner in W.P. No. 11519 of 1996 offers a training course in shorthand and typewriting at nagavarapalya, k.r. puram in Bangalore. Recognition granted to the institute has been renewed from time to time as is evident from one such order produced by the petitioner. The petitioner in that petition has questioned the validity of an order dated 21st April, 1995 issued by the commissioner of public instructions permitting the 4th respondent to establish a similar institute in the d.r.d.o. complex, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bangalore. The challenge is primarily founded on the plea that the new institute permitted by the said order is within the prohibited distance of 1 km. From the petitioner-institute. While the matter was still pending in this court, the government appears to have issued instructions to the commissioner of public instructions asking him to cancel the order earlier made in favour of the 4th respondent. A notice was accordingly issued to the 4th respondent to show cause why the permission granted should not be recalled. The proceedings culminated in an order dated 24th April, 1998 whereby the permission was withdrawn with immediate effect. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent has filed writ petition No. 25188 of 1998 challenging the validity of the said Order, and for a declaration that Rule 3(a)(ii) of the rules regulating recognition of commerce institutes is unconstitutional.

(3.) Mr. Hegde, counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 11519 of 1996 has filed a memo seeking permission to retire, as the petitioner had not turned up to give further instructions in the matter despite the issue of a notice for retirement. The memo states that for want of instructions, learned counsel is not in a position to prosecute the matter any further and may therefore be allowed to retire. The retirement memo is accompanied by a postal acknowledgment of the notice sent to the petitioner by Mr. Hegde. In the ordinary course, Mr. Hegde could have been permitted to retire and in the absence of any alternate arrangement the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution. But, having regard to the fact that arguments in part were heard by me on the previous date of hearing, I am not inclined to accede to the request at this stage. Mr. Hegde when requested to continue has made his submissions in support of the petition and lent whatever assistance was possible from his end.