IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD.
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY or FEBRUARY 2010
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE3 MRJUSTICE) N.:<.PAT1;L_, 'A
Writ Petition No. 65772 of 2(50§{LA~.UDA}' _ I
Between:
Nasir S /0 Abdulkhadar Naikwadi,
Aged about 72 years,
Occ: Retired Railway Servant,
R/ at Keshwapur, Hubli, _ »
Represented by Power of Attorney 'Ho'1c¥.e"r;,'
Srid. Mohammad Siddique, _ ..
S/0 Nasirucidin Kamaaag-ar, V . . .
Aged about 30 Y'tars}._= 4 . .V
R/at Veerapura Ci'-r'ii,"I~IV1;1'b-1il;_, V " _V
Dharwad District. C_ " ' r_ ...Petitior1er
'(By'SVri;E';V."}?a'ti«E.='Adv.)
And: * " »-- V
1. _ The State Vof.Karr1ata_ka,
Re.presei1ted by Secretary",'V
flUr,ba:1_. Development Department,
.
Dr”; Af%1_bedka;:t,Veed’hi,
Banga16re–56C’C3__0i.
, The Hubii–t3harwad Deveiopment
.;’.is
W ” ” » . Lhority, “represented by its
‘ €Q”m,mi’s.si0ner, Hubli,
” Dharwad District. …..Responcier1ts
‘jj (By Sri. PH. G inc1i,HCGP, for R1)
¥\J
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to (a) Issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider’thie.1_eg_a1
notice issued by the petitioner dated 17/’.09.2009, vide Anne2i’ure~G
and the representation given by the petitioner dated1i9.’9_LV200-‘I%__,i”_
vide Annexure«~H and to take appropriate decision in the matter,
the interest of justice and equity. (1)) Issue a writ_-i*n’~th:e.nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned preliminary’ ‘noti;’ica.ti,¢n idatedi.»6’15
February 2002 _ _ ‘be-arinvg.
No.I~Iu.Dha.1\§a.Pra./Bhu.Swa/III/CR/2001«:02._ ‘ issued .. ”
respondent No.2, vide Annexure,«C-.__ and 7_the impugned Fina} _
Notification dated 7th 9Ctobe’1~’.__.p ‘ 200.3 ‘hearing 2
No.Na.A.E./46/Be.Ma.Pra/2001 issued.._by_respon.dent No.1, vide
Annexure~D in so far as they acetate toithe. land of the..pe~t’itioner is
concerned, and the impugned. er.idorsem_ent”«.dated 22.05.2009
bearing No.Hu.Dha. Na. Pra. /Bhiu.’Swa.};»2.v/ – 1 3 / 09- 10/ 468
issued by respondent No.2, videVAnnexure–F’*andi._’ctc.
This petition on”-_forigpre1in1in’a.Iy.h.earing this day, the
Court made the f<__::1i'owi_ng:._f_ = « V. _p _. it . .
…. ..
In thei’.._instan.ti”cased’thexpetitioner assailing the impugned
notification dated Annexure~C and the final
novtiiicatioriidated 097; vide Annexure~D in so far as it
reiateis ‘to, the iiland of the petitioner is concerned and the impugned
endorisenieniti'”idated.:’-22.05.2009 vide Annexure-P’ and further
“sought fora w’rit-of mandamus to respondents~»1 and 2 to consider
_1:ega1,_notice issued to the petitioner vide Annexure–G and
V”4.:1’represein’tation submitted by the petitioner dated 19.09.2009 vide
iA’n1ie.xu:re-H, has presented this writ petition.
.–“””‘”‘w#flf
DJ
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri
Vijendra Bhimakkanavar along with Sri F’.V.Patil and duriiagthe
course of submission, learned counsel for the petitionei”‘sLtb’m:itted’~.A
that the writ petition may be dismissed as withclraxifncv
liberty to the petitioner to redress his igriejvancielbefore_wt.hef
jurisdictional competent authority and all the grounds-uriged in the -‘
petition may be left open.
3. The statement ie-arr1edIi__counsel for the
petitioner is placed pehtitfioin is disrnissed as
withdrawn petitiioner to redress his
grievance authority, if he is so advised or
need arises. ..;n the writ petition are left open
to be urgedbeforelithe corinpevtelntiilauthority. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/–3
JUDGE