Sukumar P Upadhya vs The Commissioner City … on 9 June, 2008

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGAL0}-§EII"'    _

DATED TI--IIs THE 9TH DAY QFA'JU«NE;_4:2(:)iO8Il     

EEFOEE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE MO-HAN EEIIDY 

WRIT PETITION EOIIEEEEOOEIEOOEILEéREsJ:

BETWEEN

 

1 SUKUMAE I>';:§IIPIAI;*sI~I'IA~" " A'  
AGED    .
S/O PARiSAPPA'UPA;DHYE  
O(3C"UPAIDH'f,E_(PUROHI'F}W 
EIEO. H.NcI.V444, SI-IARIGALLI,

BELCAUEI. '     F? 
(By Sri. R P PATTI}, AO\?_;Ii§B$ENT)
     %%%%% 
 I'fiO{E'CO§&M'I$SI.ONER, CITY CORPORATION OF'

"'BELVGAL¥M_' 
EEIICAIII/I~E;'I9iOo 16.  RESPONDENT.

O   TIIIS WEIT PE"I'1'i'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

 --226' _F~.l§I_D'A.' 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

= .IPEAYINC'I TO QUASI-I THE STATEMENT OF THE

 RESPONDENT D'I'.NIL SERIAL NO.3 PETITIONER IN
 ALLOTMENT OF SITE IN OPEN SPACE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

 BAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
UK

 PETITIONER.

 



ORDER

Though called twice once j; _

again in the afternoon, there is no re1fir(_:santati(i:;} for t.’r7;e

petitioner. Hence, the for
non-prosecution. .

KS