IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DAT E21) THIS THE 08"" DAY OF DECEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE H.N.NACAMO1--1AN:.~«DAS.'__'_j
WRIT PETITION No.3453"a/2009{LS-R1;S3~._ I
BETWE3 EN:
IVIr.A.R.KUMAR.
S/O B.S.RAJAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS A A
R/O SAHAYATAJ INDUSTRIES. '
KHATA NO3445/1095. '_ '~ _ _ _
BY THE SIDE OF SI{ET'FIlL{ALL--l. GA'Ig'--E}, ' '
TUMKURM 572 :02. -- A
.... I ...PETITION}':3R'
(isy Sri. '1'
AND:
TH E MI;f{i\t'1C.aPAL COA/1VM1S,rS1ON ER
" TUMKUR TOWN MUNICIPAI. COUNCIL
'A'~TUMI{.Lu?R _ , *
...RESPOI\IDEN'I"
*m1S..'\2'\/;**:'1'*r PETITION IS FILEID UNDER ARTICLES 225
22% OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO
D.IIRoI>T:R' ' VIDE NOTICE) DATED 24.02.2000. VIDE
.__\I'ANN¥'3XUR]$-K AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND ULTRAVIRES.
Q"\z'k,«*i_
THIS VVRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PREL1M1NARY
HEARING, THES BAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOV\flNG:-
ORDER
In this writ petition. the petitioner has 3
of mandamus directing the respondent not to d’eijio3ishx0′
construction put up by him pursua;xn>t’V’to.1A;1*1′.e
24.02.2009 at Aririexure ‘K’ and i0 qL.1aish * . «. 0
2. A reading of the riotiee Arihriextire
that it is a provisional order. li1″th’is:”pitx/Jisionail”order. it is
stated “their”T}”1fi_}2i3′{iti’0f3f1’€l”E0V’SL1bfIi”iL””1’i§S explanaiiori within 3
days. petitiorier submitted his
expianatiou Eis~.pEI.’ AI1I1(3§i1;i1’%:-01,’. The learned Counsel for the
_.v.petitio.:1ie1′ 0Asz1bH1its”–v.ti:hgit. subsequent to the pet.itioner’s
28.02.2009, no final order is passed. if
tha-it is-.so. Vrespodiideiit to pass final order by cor1sicEe1’ii1g the
V pet.itioh”e1″s~-Vexpliémation at Aririexure ‘L’ dated 28.02.2009 and
xsxzgth VVp’e1’iod. the respondent shed} not demolish the
_’_t:§)ri:~3irii’etio1i put up the by the petitioner. If the respondent
04%/K
‘LAD
have already passed any order. then the petitioner has to
work out his remedy in accorciance with law.
3. With the above observation, the writ pe1i_t1’o_I’i’*.i_Vs
hereby disposed e;>{‘wii,h0ut reference to the res}30nc1ei’1E..’ ~ A’
dm*