AGED: ABQUT’,66’VVYEAR$”~~.___ _ ‘
..E..
IN ‘rm-2 HIGH comrr or KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE’ 20TH my OF JU”L\f;~:2{}’£39′ _ H
BEFORE X 3 ‘
THE H0m:3LE MR.Jus*1=:<;E RAM r.40r%%.?&£€Ji12:«;I3i)Y%M – '
WRIT PETFFION No. zofesyagr 2do9.(1,B;_FBMP)
BETWEEN V A V
NO.165/C, 6{m_c:Ross, §
RM. NAGARA nȤ;;-are Ream, V V
RAMAMU;§I"mr_VNAQARN, "
BANGALORE~'SEjQO16; REP. FOUNDER
CHAIRMAN SR1. M. RAMA RA.C}"~*
SHREE SADGURU SEVA–S3AMlTI''® : %' V
V . V . PETITIONER
(By Sri : "N.__R NAfi~:13;.Ass::l0czATEs )
A . S''m'I'';3: OF KARNATAKA
._ %. REF';..__B'{i'FS SECRETARY,
A? ' URBAKDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.;s.-BUILDING, BANGALORE-560003..
_2_ Tm: COMMISSIONER,
V KBRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
* BANGALORE.
VA V. THE DEPUTY COMMiSSiQNER’
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALQRE. ‘ E
. X”
if/’
-3-
the Act, is calieci in question on the premise that the
petitioner’s objections Annexure-B was not considefefi
by the State Government.
2. It is not in dispute that a_dra_f’£ ” 2
issued over the delimitation of
constitution of the BBMP, 1:5 t;ii1e flied
its otgections. If that ieyso, zjigxeetion of interference
in the final notiiicatieri No.44 of
‘* ‘ . “jfifidical review under
Articie of of India, unless tainted
with Vmalafiéieef’ or; égteczéng the legal rights of the
‘V V’ w–}j1ich iS ’21;);ja1eI1tly not forthcoming from the
“Mé1nb:va§1d:1:£1AVpi’_:sarrit Petition.
A »..44_%}’11e~A;§etition is accordingly rejected.
Sfif
Judge