M Mahadeva Raju Advocate vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 13 February, 2009

*»-Mwm W" NMNMWWM WWW MW-Mm. Mgr rmxmmmmm mun mum" aw KAKNARAKA Mmm %;(3URT OF mxmmam. max QWJRT Q? mmfiamm HWH $3155

..1.

IN THE HIGH OGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BxPa3iG'rA1.:0RBl
DATED THIS THE 13" BAY OF' FEBRUARY 2339 
BEFQHE

THE HGN'BbE flR.JUSTICE RKVI MALIM%k"*?*--"

wax? PETITIDN 30.4326 0? gags Lha~§;é*3?"P)"

BETWEEN

M HAHADEVA aaau
HINDU MAJOR

Acme neon? S6 vaaas

AEVOCATE

axaw wo.1s2 _ , ; _~_

4" HAIR, 1"-' <:a'.=as..  

vrvmxmasaa -V T" 1 »,';¢_;
aaNaALoaa.47 ,w~-;w -_y,.s3r:rI@nza

{av sa: 3 V fiamnéxixfiaa gab; 36?.)
AND . , . ,_ V . ,

1 coa§oaAfzéH_Qé 15$ QITE or BANGALORE
REERESENTE$'B$ I?E=¢UflaI3SIONER

2 CHIEF Eyc:NéEE $xe§}
aaxeALoaE,MaHaNA5AaA PALIKE
n5R.sQUARs;»B§y§ALoaE 560 002

 =, é'»$mr M ¥ASMIN TAJ

'T#;a"s?EuxsA$AuLLA
,"3usLzm,.Msa¢a
' VR/AT _H{}A;.1A32 4"' MAIN ROAD
2*" czaoss, VIVAKRAGAR
BxPs.%£G.Fs§.aORE3 550 047 . .RESPOHDEIN'I'S
f»V{&x an: H c sxzvnaanu, ADV. roa.a1 s R2
 *3.¥£I K B 8 MARIAN, REV. FOR. R2}

 WRIT PETITIGN I5 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225

--_ *$&§ 22? as THE conswrwuwran 0? INDIA FRAMING TO
'~.DInc? R1 Ann R2 To EQDIFY THE SANCTION Accoansn

TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO PUT UP CGNSTRUCTION AS

PER AJ’fl’i$§L£fiE£-R ENE} FURTHER IJIRECP THE RESPGHDENTS

«AM