High Court Karnataka High Court

The Bangalore Developemnt … vs K L Harishkumar on 5 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Developemnt … vs K L Harishkumar on 5 December, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
Wm; W Mummmm mm was" we mmmmm mm M-yuan <2? mmmmm. mm mam W mxmmm W31»; mum' W mR.NATAm Haw mam'

IN THE.HIGH cauxw or KARNATAKR AT BANGALdEE*_

DATEI) 121125 '.t'£~m 5" my 02' 1:31-:cEH.a.E1'-1'::2Gfi§ 1'%j"' 

ran HDN'BLE HR. 9.9. nxnAKA£anfi'éHfiEfif3fisrfcfi*{_

THE HwN*BLE Hm,JUsmI€fijv;a, sgnnaazf
warm ApPmA: §c}1§8J2éfiaS'(Eng;

........................ 3  ~ ~. ' ' ' . ' V . ' ' ' , , .-

TI-IE 5ANGA1.a;::as:.; 'o§.'vE:i;cm§+:'r' 'AETHQRITY
KUMARA ,eA3x';.._sx:e;3;g;y .ac1;3: "  3
mncamas "    _
av ITs'=.¢ot«st2-iI3s;Is2;m_   '

 ._ .    .. AE£'ELLhN'I'

my Sri E.AS;9;.YAi?A§3~--,_§'~~§ABARAD - mwocmm}

     2  ..... 

Inanduu-n

'7uk,L HAfizsxkr§na

3 ffiv SKI' --1i?sKE}fl4IIHARAYPsNA
 !U ~'i'EP§RS
REE' BYKHZZS GPA HDLDER LAKE}-R4IKhRAYAHA

 3/0 L533 VI:!£KA'I'A3U'A!iY, AGE 69 YEARS
- M33483, 14%: MAIN, I-{AL xx 5-raga
= _AAIH'_QQiRARAGAR, BA:-:62-.1.oas:

. . . RESEQKDEN?'

 Eri PRABIWLING K HAVADGI -- ADYOCATE FOR

CAVERTGF. REES EGHGENT NO. 1 I

WRIT A9EEA.L FILED U23 4 DE' THE KAWATEKA
HIGH Cfliifi'? ACT 3?RP.'{I!*1G T0 SET A5I9E THE} QRQEZR



PA33ED IN THE'. wan' PETITION NO.13U40f2U06'-ZEET-SD
1113/zone.  ~..

THIS wan APPEAL comma UP  ' .
THIS G DAY, smauanrr J._,.....__4DE_InIVE£11f;.'D"'  "

FO :

This appeal  £i1AedViA'by"V.the..ireapofiiaent in
w.p.no.13o4oJ2oos "h:ain$§e__§§9f@;ti§fv'§d_by the order
dated 11.3.2993 -.m.r.gin %1i.md Single

Judge hag'     order dated

uwuni \..~.- nnnlinlnnfl l'l|\J'I'l \..\JUKfA  IKAKNAIAIUI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR7

17.7.2006

pa.a5a3_’a’dG_G’b§*1:;;:’_th-any heroin and
directed the case of
the petitiona’.i:.___in.V with law.

2.’ ~ ‘J.’:141o zoapondent herein f ilad

averting that he is a
of Bangalore and a citizen
He is presently residing in
_ USA. He made an application for
of Site in Si.1:.H.?iaveahwa::aya

iayout, Bangalore, developed by the EDA. The

said application wan considered and a aite

K.)

wwwmn war nnmwmmasn nwnn %..6..JI.z¥HA §.*:{‘: RXJJMNIMIMXA mm-s £.;UUKi £3?’ KAKNAYAKA HIGH CQURY Q? KARNfi§’%”£7&.K& FWGH CGUK3 G?’ KARMfiX’S”}4\Kfik MEGH COEJW

the signature of his father: and

alas the photograyhag allotted the
petitioner had contended .t:hatA ‘
Detrelcmmani: Authority waai’ «V ~~ . .

cancelling the a1lotm§nf”‘~.Vpf :§=ij1:e

that the petitiarxag is AVAxaVfij{s§e;;ta:£i” tvhrfiillqh the
power -of attom§§.:A” Thorn is no
prohibitiar-E Davelflimcnt
Autho.tit3;r” #3 the De man
tram for allatmant of
site of atternsy. The

after hearing the c-ozmsal

f€53:…__.i:he writ petitiener and the

Lvafiaauing rm: Bangalore Development

V..?’}V:V1eld that there is no pxzohibitian

tar’ ..aL”‘g_p-vcanwcr cf attorrmy holder: to tile an

:§§V§g;l’icatian far allotment of site and in

igeaponse to the intimation given by the

Bengal art Development Autzhcxity, the

petitioner: and his father, as his power of

attorney holder, haa appearaazi hatam the

Bazxgalare Development Authority and preséiuéefi

the photoqragshs duly attoatad *

allotazuant or site in £avou,r.~”rs:.Ath§é} §a§.iEi<$;3cJ:_

could. not be ¢am':e.'Ll-ad. an

application 20.1: allotf:pm;_ ixt_ gi#'Qz§._ §:yV '°hia" L'

pawn: at &tt0rI!: Of{.V .' ''acsso3::E1ingly'
allowad the writ aside the
impugned ' ' Bangalcre
the allotment
cut' site " §;'E::V't}21c:vV.;-saiititioncsr and
directed " " ccmaidexz tie
naqfuost at in amardama t-:i.th
"1~1…,.,I:!«.2008. Being aggrieved

by —of the learned Single Judy,

Authority has pmferred

. f;:.\:,_~.:i,:s . pppaal 3

V' we have heard the leamd rwemsel for

V' "Ath _§;=appellant-Bangalara Davalopmzant Authaacity

the leazned cveunsel fax: the mvaamer.

flfifii" flfl @{A§iNA"&%.K£§. Hfifivfi azzmgm flvcémnwawmmfim Mlww mmum M?' KAKNMEAKH mmrn wwwwm um mmewmammm mm-m Mwmtmfi W3» mMm»¢,mWmM W
_; . Iwn wwwna

\,9

..»..»-wan M-w am-uuxmmumexn e-nu.w1 °A.u%..¢7%..flE\iV '§4fll:": mmmmmammm Mfiwfl %…&}UKI ur gurufimfigmgym Mgggfi gag"; (M-» ggflnmfiufinfl Wgww CQU§{-g- {Mu fifigmflg-fififl M"-5" CQUR1

2: . The learned counsel for the up;:"c£i.fl.§2:f;

submitted that the application
:21' site was made by the.:»AA»g*ansx§4§§i'VV'4"of V
attorney holder and A'

parmitting the pf __i£x'§;:t'i:Aa;i:1::ar*y" to*

file an applicatiacsgu sue–::if§g"'~~f9rh'e§lv.'£.at:'uan1': at'
nite and when 13° 'Sh?

knowledge ‘V Development
Authority’ *A£$é1f::’:r§e;””~uezu£sa notice to
that p£s’t’ivt,.’i:;A§3L:T;a;p§1′;;:,; Vuthiép allatment at site
made i.:_; ha been duly

c:a.z:.«::all§’ci.._ §a::s:i ‘ “1u’~&xned Single Judge was not

ju.:§€:if_§§e5i iu’ 1see;.t:t;%.rs;; aside the uaid oxder.

V izuve given careful conaideraticn tn}

this. ac;;’:t§£:.tions of the learned counsel for the

agggellwaiat and acrutinised the material on
‘A-ufi’u:3’rd. The material can record would clearly

thut: the applicatium fez allctment: of

site was made by the power at attorney haldexr

who is none other than the fathaz of the

U