High Court Karnataka High Court

Chandrayya @ Karkera vs Village Panchayat on 3 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Chandrayya @ Karkera vs Village Panchayat on 3 July, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, 

DATED THIS T113 03120 DAY or JULY     _

BEFORE

THE Ho1~rBLE am. JUSTICE  

WRIT PETITI0}_\IWNO.1881§3 OFAQQQ9  :3 

BETWEEN:

1 CHANDRAYYA@ KARKERA .   "
S/OBADA PUJARI "  ' I" =
AGED 32 YEARS,  
RESD1NGAT'N.0.2;5179'  .  
sAsH1HI'§*HLI:1.-v::LI;AGE;"   
     PETYFIONER.

(By Sri.  M :iIA3'Ai::%gJ, AJ:;w.«_f.') " 
AND: I  '  " n

1 v1LLA{}E%%PAN'CHm*AT_.»LV
HALIYAN€.}ADi  1 
V, .2;/£A;~:c3~ALo'RE, TALUK
  ..... 

~ . ” REP .35; His SECRETARY

‘~’_Fo221?«i:3T KENVIRONMENN
A A F’C)RES’l”I,_ ENVIRONMENT AND GEOLOGY DEPT
“1S’I?_’F’LGC3R, MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CQMMERCIAL COMPLEX, LALBAGH,
.. MAi*5’GALORE-575 003
‘mp BY yrs REGIONAL DIRECTOR RESPONDENTS.

_ Sri: K GOVINDARAJ, ADV. FOR C/R1,
T j Sm. M13. NAGASHREE, AGA ma R2)

M

petitioner by letter dated 19-06-20()9

Hence, this writ petition.

3. There is considerable
the learned counsel for V» sehe
communication impugtjegi prior
notice and an opportt.1IaiiVt5? the petitioner
and hence, in ~p.fi;fiieip1es of natura}
justice. ‘I’he5 has a few facets,

two of to be made and

(b) -.

4., the iI1et’ar1t___ea$e, there is vioiation of both the

Afaeets’ of ._”Aggrieved must be appraised” is the

flowing from the postuiates of

Amcle i4. Constitufion of India.

A .;i’he writ petition deserves to be aliowed and is

égtveortilixzgly allowed. The impugxed communication

i..2@\

Axmexure~”A” and the resolution Annexure–“A1–‘5_”§>f

1st respondent are quashed.

6. It is made clear that tfic

Grama Panchayath is at actinnéancel ‘V

the iicence, in accordance ‘extendirzg a
reasanable oppo1*tunity oi’ jgefitioner and
if so done within: £0 conciude the
proceedings’ and in the
not to put up any
to the licence Annex13re~
“B”, cf fi*.1E’f#ifoceedi;}gs.

5&5?

fu§g§