High Court Karnataka High Court

Keroji Rao vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 11 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Keroji Rao vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 11 August, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
INTfiflififlfliCOURTCHFKARNATAKA.BANGALQRE

DATED TI-IIS THE 1 1"' DAY or AUGUST. 

BEFORE

THE I--IoN'BLE MR. JUSTICE  

WRIT PETITION NO. 15545;"'<)F'C20b(é1 

WRIT PETITION 1\:o.82f74'oE 2007A I$---TIQ"  "

W.P.N0.15545 OF 2005  
BETWEEN '

1 KEZROJI RAjo,..s/CI' LA'IE N.ARjA.sIMI~;:A."RAo
AGED 5:;     ~ _ 
REVENU 0--EE: O.FFi"CE§} OP' TH E
COMMISSIQNEVR; CITE IvIu~I\IICIPAI_. COUNCIL
M.AI».I.A__D'E_vAE;I._IRA.__'  ' '  
£;A_NCAI,t3_RE-"48 _ 

  I  =   ...PETl'I'lONI-ER.

[By Sri: V'-I,AIr.s:LI'II/IINAI2A*;fAAIA. ADV.)

    ..... 

I T or KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECY

_ .HO’U.$IraI.i3-.~AND URBAN DEVI52LOPMENT’
~ V DEPT.”,_ \;’H{ASA SOUDHA
4’1.f_Ii ‘F-IIOOR, BANGALORE4

I2? THE DIRECTOR

‘ MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

9TH FLOOR. v.v. TOWER

DRAMBEDKAR V’f§I3ZI)}’II
BANGALOREO}

“V.

3 TI–{E DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
K. G . ROAD. BAN GALORE~9

4 THE COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
MAHADEZVAPURA
BANGALORE48
5 S A RAMAPRAKASH
AGE 46 YEARS
REVENUE OFFICER I
TOWN MUNICIPAL coIII\IC_:1;~.,_%
VIJAYAPURA, I)I:vENAIIALLI_’IALUK A ” ‘ ‘

BANGALORE DISTRICI’ _ RI3SI>QI\I.I’}I:I\I’rS.

[By Sl’i1 M S ANAI\IDAIzAIVIUI-Ar2yVi§–.:§oI% _
SR1. JAGADISH MUNIJARCJ”. .I;IcQI*{ FOR In TO R3.
SR}. B.V. MURAI,_1D.Ij~IAR:;’AD’\£._; E’OR’VA»1″§;;} I.

THIS I-*I:.__I2_I) ..III\II)I%’f.R ARIICLIES 226 227
OF ‘I’f–IE cc:NSiIfI*I>U’rI–0I\I ‘ INQIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE II\z1;f9UG_1\II~:z? .TRf¥..Nf:FER ORDER DT. 3.1.1.2006 PASSEI)
BY R1 V{1DE’A.NNiZiXA.[)_ASONE W{‘[‘I~IOU’I’ JUR1Sl”f)IC’i’ION.
ILLEGALKAND –\V/I0j_I;.~..A”I”I..\__/2I’«:»..4 ..–~3I«’ ARTICLE 14 01;’ ‘1’IIIi«:
CONS’I’E’I’U’i’–‘IOi’J 012* INDIA.

w.I>,m§o’ 82.74 OF’ 2&0?

[By Srs: v LAKSHMINARAYANA. ADV.)

KERO-J1 RAD
T 8/0 {ATE NARASIMHA RA0
AGI«:D.5’5 YRS. /~\SSiS’Z{‘AN’l” REVENUE OFFICER
WHi3’EP’IE)L£) SUB RANGE. MAI-IAI)I3:vAPURA
_ A RANGE. IBRUHAT BANGALORE MAIIANAGARA
«PALIKF3. BANGALORE 6 PE’FITIONIiR.

UK

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA I A T

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL sE:crzI~:’I’AI_a_*g’.’V’:- A.

UBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPAR’l’I\/HINT
VIKASA SOUDHA. 4 FLOOR
BANGALORE 1

“Fl-1’14: STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS SECRETARY ‘ – . .

URBAN £)EVELOPMENT.D1§I’AR’1″?&?£ENT ‘ A
VIKASA SOUDHA. 4 FLOOR ‘ .

BANGALORE I ‘

THE CADRE I\/IAI\IA_G~If«:IvII.éI\I’If”AIIfIf:»:I0I§§I’I’Y H V
URBAN DEVELOPM’££i\IT DIg:§)£;I{‘i|VpAENT_V
VIKASA SOUDHA. 4 F’L0_OR_ j’ ‘ ‘

13ANGAI.O£9,I4;

THE C_OAi\II1}/lIii5″:SIO’1\J’:1_$§{1IA.N[)«– DjIRE{j’*fbIz OF MUNICIPAL
ADMIIIIS1j-RATION

9 IfLQO{a:, _fOW’EI_-2′; l3R___A_M_E3EDKAR VE3EDI~~ll
BvANGAI;c;iRE ” ‘

THE

I3I’2UHA’I’ I3AI«I(;I»II,oRr.: MAHANAGARA PALIKE

_I\I_ R CIRc_I;Ia..,BANiGA’L0I’2I: 2

-[I “‘I’IaiAE J01 NT ‘C’oIvfivIIssI0NI:Iz

I.IAIvIA_Ij£:vAPURA RANGE’.

~ ” ‘BRU HAT__BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PLIKI;
__RI+IB”_cQI,:0’NY. BANGALORE 48

S F<Aj{/IAPRAKASI-I

S] O; LATE M ASVVATH SH ETFY
AGED ABOUT 44 YRS

A 'T "REVENUE OFFICER

-NO 228. 1 FLOOR. 11 MAIN

WILSON GARDEN. BANGAI.ORI[*I
RESPONDIENTS.

[M

4

{By Sri: B V MURLIDHAR. ADV. FOR R5 & 6.
SR1. JAGADISH MUNDARGI. HCGP FOR R1 TO R4]

THIS I:>I::’I*I’rIOI\I FILED UNDER ARTICLE 2264.3:-.:,§’2.7

OF ‘rI~II:: CONS’FI’I’UTION OF’ INDIA PRAYING ‘I’Q.1’QI”IA;s3.I’-I’-.
T}-IE3 IMPUGNED ORDI;-3R DT. 14.5.2007 I>AssIa:1:) _I3Y _
VIBE ANNEXURI43 P. AS ONE WITHOUT JUI<«I$i).Ic:.fI'I"OI\I»,._f

ARBITRARY AN D ILLIEGAL.

THESE PE’I’I’I’IONS. COMING ‘ I
HEARING IN 13’ GROUP. ‘I’IIIs I)/w ‘l”I:jIE’vCOUR’1′” .M.AI3I:’, 13:’ =

FOLLOWING :

0 R D

Sri. V. LakshmirI§’f*:1yaIII§’;’:_ for the

petitioners submits for in the

petitions are 1°eII(Ier-ed i::’Jf1’§|,1(“:”t,tI(‘)’LiVS; ‘E$yv«}3-assage Of time.

Recording the’ of the learned (“,()Ul1S(‘.}

the petjtivons eii’e. a<:IcOrd'ing"ly rejected.

Sd/3
FUDGE