High Court Karnataka High Court

Amaresh Patil S/O Channanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secy … on 7 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Amaresh Patil S/O Channanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secy … on 7 July, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
IN TI-ifi HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED ms THE 7*" DAY 05-" JULY   I  I' 
swans  I  
THE HON'BI..E MR. Jus'r:cE  's=§A1':L:_j     I

BETINEEENI

1. AMARESH PATIL 
SIC. CHANNANAGOUDA, I 
AGE 38K YEARS   _ 
RESIDENT OF SINDHANOOR,  I
DIST. RAICHUR 534128. I

2. P.RUDRAGQi;_£DAg" _ _ p    
5:0. BAsANAaa;:w-.--,:*_V -- 'V V ~  '
AGE:48Yi:'AR$_,  " _  A 
RESIDENT OE SiNi3H&NL!R'TALUI'§ ..  .~
SlNDHANU'R,.F2AICHIjR $137,534 123. 

_ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ PETITIONERS
(BY sR;.MAHANTEs:+<;. KDTf'ER.§HE"iTI5I'i?2 3}
SMT. VIEJYAVATHI K., ADVOCATES}  

AN,r3:.

1. THE,ST.':°gTE OF I<}£RNA.TAKA,
BY. ITS SECRETARY 'TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMEN I'-OFKL URBRN DEVELOPMENT,
MS. ESUILEJING, I  

I  <».BAh£GALQRE.5§6f.30(?§;1.'I

' " 1I;T!:IE'{3ITY Mtémrsfisvaz. COUNCIL,

 $II§iDH}'«NtI_R, TALUK SINDHANUR,
DIST, RRIICHUR - 584128.

 __  g RESPONDENTS

(EY’€3RI_-,5..$. KUMMAN, AGA FOR R1;

‘ ; . . _ 32. ‘SERVED AND uwnepaexmm)

Witt

wan’ PETITION NO. 5537 arms ( LB-»RE§§ ‘~ I

. pa

2

“$1-EIS WRIT PETITION I3 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO STRIKE fl0WP\I THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT’ 2000 (KARNATAKA ACT
NO.28J200’E) VIDE ANNEXURE B AS UNCGNSTITUTIONAL AND
INVA1.ID.ETC.

‘mas warr PETITION comic on For: HEARING, ms o§§$r,oTHE
comm” MADE THE” FOLLOWING; .. v _ _’ _

9_E_D…§_B

Petitioners horain have prayed to ~«

Kamataka Municipalities (AmgncIm’xeinf;o > % I IAA’ct’.I

(Karnataka Act No.28 of ~i2__G{)_1) asf

unconstitutional and fnvalido have

sought for a writ of respondent

No.2 ‘coiiagct taxes as per the
amenooaéhf Act: vIde Annexure 8.

_ .2. lftaxfe hoafd Iéorned counsel appearing for the
I Government Advocate appearing for

res;:=onti”antI No.1, at the outsot, submitted mat, the writ

_ by petitioners may be disposed of following

order passed by this Court dated 17″‘ April 2003 in

I Petition No.26292I20G2, wherein the similar relief

has been sought. The said submission made by learnw

1
~

Z-

. Judge

3

Government Advocate appearing for raspondents is not

disputed by learned counsel for petitioners.

4. The submission made by leafiiod _

appearing for both parties is placeftiiiorii I

5. The writ petition filed’ byvipofitioneifo.

following the order passed 37*” April
zms passed in Writ oiid for the
reasons stated iztaereiri,-Vi–o.r.il3r ihe petitioners

herein are ii _ ‘

Sd/–