1 W.P.No. 61790/2009 (LB-RES) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI3 DATED THIS THE 12th DAY op' JANUARY,o..«2.o'1Vo'__'__o- " BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUsTIs:;1§ HA3. " W.P. No. 61790/200§vfLB--ARES} '_j '. , " ' Between: 3 V. « R Panchaxarappa . S / 0 Kotrappa Omkari 68 yrs, occ: agriculture _ r/oVinayakr1agar ' Ranebennur . ' Dist: I-Iaveri . _' .. PETITIONEJR (By Sri; Iagtiii,'iIAc1v)*--'.' % AND * ' 1 Stats: of.Kar.nat.a1§r"_ea1to;"§f Municipal Administration Vishveshwaraiah Tower Ambedkar Veedhi " Be-ngalooru -- O1 .3 The Commissioner A City Municipal Council Ranebennur Ranebennur Tq, Dist: Haveri 4 Vishnuraddi 8/ 0 Hanumaradcli Kamaradcler 2 W.P.I\E0. 61790,/2009 (L.B«RES) 61 yrs, occ: Rtd.Lecturer 5 Bhemappa S/0 Murigeppa Kadur 72 yrs, occ: Rtd. ADA 6 Virupaxappa S / O Shankrappa Ritti 56 yrs, occ: business 7 Crangadharayya V « .. _V S/0 Mahjadevayya Mathaci'--,, 72 yrs, occ: Rtd Head Master ' 8 Dr.Kariyappa V _ __ _ S/0 I-Ianurnappa M,ukka,.rmavgr'-. " 61 yrs, occ: Rtd_Prof_esso.r ' ' 9 S/ ' 73 y'rs,~i:_oc{e: Rt.d..Sta"_tist'1c'a1 Qfficer 10 Chidlikwd, H V _ M 6 /*0 Hant: .1Vf'12ar1t,hVr~.a__c5" Kuikarni yrs, ceci .Rtd"iT.eac':ier 11,, . , Shsfilqsr' .. S,/0 Hafluljlanfll Kulkarni ' {'30 'yrs, occ:"Rtd Head Master --
__N1,;rigappa Masangi
55 yrsd, occz business .. RESPONDENTS
” V 6-“; RMI3» to 12 are r/o Vinayakanagar
V Ranebennur, Tq: Ranebennur
Dist: I-Iaveri
(By Sri Dinesh M Kuikarni, Adv for R»-4 85 6 to 12
Sri K B Adhyapak, AGA for R-1 82; 2
R6 deleted; R~3 served.)
3 W.P.N0. 61790/2009 (LB-RES)
This we is filed under Articles 226 at 227 omhe
Constitution of India, praying to quash the irnpiigned
order vide Annexure-D dated 4–2~«2009 passed V.
etc:.,.
This WP coming on for preliminary day; it
‘ the Court made the foliowirlgw ” « ” « ‘
ORQEEQ7″
In this writ petitiorii, the p i p¢tttti*t~tt’er’i is
challenging the orde17,_’_dated (Anr1’ei<ure–D)
passed by respondent the~.:_iCio.'n1irri.issioner, City
Municipal §anebe:rrriur___Viiivithdrawing the
permission to install 'mobile
Vigranted permission as
per Ann_exure~}lt'date'd..::2'9 :1 1.2008.
~ jfltie soiemlcontention urged by the learned
_ Conns4e'l.,viorftl:ie petitioner is that the impugned order
at» Aiine:§ure–D was passed without affording an
At oppoi'-ttinity of hearing to the petitioner. This
"'..i'Cor1tention is not disputed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
fig'
4 W.P.No. 61790/2009 (names)
3. In my opinion, the impugned order
to be quashed with liberty to respondent
proceed in the matter after affo.rdingAan_” of.’
hearing to the petitioner
persons. Accordingly, I f.o11.owi.ng_:
The 4-2-2009
withdrawing a ‘Lthe he 29-1 1-2008
granted to install ‘mobile tower’ is
quashed, liberty to
proceed in thv;;g:t¢1- with law after
affording anOpportunity.hofiitieairing to the petitioner
andiiiallv other’A:’conce’rned iadersons.
JUDGE
}3€.t§tiQn :'(::}f.
‘ Spf; V