1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 26th day or August 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.J.s.KHEHAR, CHIEF JU$.f;f;OE- . K
AND O. _
THE HON'I:3LE MRSJUSTICE MA1\EJULA;'CIi§§LL"UR 4- _
W.P.NO.13859/201O[£}M--RES5P1L)'i'A - = " " _
BETWEEN:
SAMPAT HANCHINALE S/O.MALLAPPA '
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Occ:EUs1NEss, _
R/OBREERESHWAR if ;
SANKESHWAR,
TQ:HUKKERI, DIsT:EEL»V--AIJM »_ « - =
I 7'...PE'FiTIONER
(133; sr;;S.M,.cI~LxNDRAsHEmR, Adv.)
AND:
1. STATE OF"K'AR1vAfrAI:A.___ _ _
DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
REP BY Us
2. OFFiCER.. .....
MUNECIPAL COUNCIL.
» W 'SA1'Jm33SHW.AR.
" __ BY ITS LEGAL SEMOR EXECUTIVE.
45. MEHATAB BAGAWAN S/OKWAJASAB,
AGED ABOUT 48, OCCIBUSINESS.
R/ O.SANKESHWAR.
TQ:HUKKEI-U, DIST:BEI..GAUM.
. . RESPOND ENTS
{By Sri.BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, PrE.GA FOR R1
SRI.I.G.GACHCHINA}\/IATH, ADV. FOR R2
SRI.B.N.JAYADEVA, ADV. FOR R3, R4 SERVED)
KT'
unu-
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT-"'-----No.2
DATED 23.2.2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE§A._’ HAS
ILLEGAL AND DIRECT RESPONDENT No.2 TO .CONSIDER
THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.1.2010 PRQDU’C.ED:’
ANNEXURE–D AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PE’I’I’I’ION COMING”ON ECIR I>RELI1vIIIIARY;
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF
FOLLOWING :
J.S.KHEI-IAR. C.J. (fits!) :
SI-I.s.M.chanera§IIeI§_aI%’,’I__’ for the
petitioner. Government
Advocate . Gachehinamath,
Advocettehmm C 2. Sri.B.N.Jayadev,
Advocate and none for respondent
No.4…’ ~
‘ «.—the Course of hearing of the present writ
petition, leatned Counsel representing respondent No.3
Ahas Inemo. The aforesaid memo has been taken
A 5_on_re’e_ord, subject to all just exceptions. A Copy thereof
been furnished to the learned Counsel for the
‘u A petitioner.
3. A perusal of the memo reveals, that respondent
No.3 who had proposed to erect a tower on the property
3
of respondent No.4, has now. for operational reasons.
decided not to erect the tower on that site and hence
states, that the solitary grievance of the petitiolier’-djoies
not survive any further.
4. Learned counsel for the petitionei: on
the memo filed by respondent :41\To.:’:3_z in
states that the instant writ f)’eti’tion hasV_ bee=n’V’iretidered
infructuous.
5. The instant accordingly,
mv*
Index: Y/N