Karnataka High Court
C K Madhukar vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2009
HG:
BANGALORE-560040
N'Ivl
IN THE HIGH CGURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE?"»G
DATED THIS THE: 16'1"" DAY OF DECEMBER G: ''
BEFO RE
THE HGN'I31,1: Mr. JUSTiCE 1--1.N.:§§1AG"AMG«HAIx3.tjA:; I
WRIT P1+:T1T1oN No.3623/2dGs(L--B-BMT5;--v_,f- = " "
BETWEEN:
1 c KMADHUKAR
S /O LATE c R_KRISHN--A,_MURIHY '- "
AGED ABO.U"'F_66 YEARS - -
2 SMT POORNTMA'?MA;GH.m56_QQG3
" ~ RASV_E1i\;'l?I..EV£ADHUKAR
.;-£3/' K MALDHUKAR
-A 'AGED Ma YEARS
-R/AT N_'()_',; ?75. 5TH MAIN
VIJAYAHAGAR
... PETITION ERS
..j;_.{I3_«; S148 G.12%;:131L11:> KUMAR FOR M/S RAG es: ASSOCIATES}
dvxzx,
!\J
AND:
1 '1'!-"IES'I'A'l'E OFIG-\R1\EA'{'AI{A
BY" ms SECRE'I'ARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT 13131->AR'1'§\/EENT H " '
M.S.BUlLD1NG * '
DRAMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANG-A.I,ORE»»56000 1
REPBY yrs c0MM1ss10NE:R_
N R SQUARE
B1~\NGALOREw56OOG2~.__
2 BRuw\'1.' BANGALORE MA1?m..NAGA:72A
3 THE ASSISTANT EXEC L3'rIv-Ew'I3NG'1
HEBBAL sUB.D1V1s101\:_:-». ' ' --~'
B.B.E\/LP.
4 13ANGAI;;0 RE V Ni 1«:I'£jR0.§»fQ 1:1.' {AN "REGION
I)EVEI;OI?Nivl?;NT Am*Hc>]Rn*Y'
L3A:\IGA1,O'R1%:m56'0052 . _
REP; £3'? ITS CC;-~MM;S;~3.10N1«:R
" " RESPONDENTS
{BY SR!R.DI-EVDASSVJCAOCA R1
SP3; 8 N PRAS[*EANTl~I,CHANDRA' ADV FOR R2 81 R3
'C " { s}21's;.G.13AND1*r, 'A'I')V FOR R4]
_C_":*1r1IS4..\C,:a;z;*éii'z::I{E;1'1T10N IS. FILED UNDER ARTICLIES 226
AND "227 0£+=_...jr£~;;1: CONSTITUTION 01> INDIA. PRAYING TO
IHCCLARE .T'}"i;r-'{I'O THE AMICNDMIZEWI" ACT AT ANNEXUREME
.VIZ.. '4"i"'.!~{1£f K}';RN1\'l'AKA TOVVN AND COUNTRY' PL;-'--\NNING
AND C££R'I';AEN OTHER LAVV {AMENDMENT} ACT, 2004.
"{KA~RNE_A'I'A}(A ACT NO}/2007}. DT 6.2.07 II\ISP3R'I'lNG
SEC'I'ION 276FF TO THE' MAIN ACT OF 196} AND
TINS_ER"i"ING SECTION 321--A TO THE KARNATAKA
___"1\'/IU1¥lCIPAL CORPORATION ACT. 1976 AND INSERTING
'S..¥:IC'l'ION 187A TO THE KARNATAKA 1\/IUNCIPALI'I'lES ACT <
6% \a\;'\.»
,CEm* ~
{,0
1964 AS UNCONSTlTU'1'1ONAL BISENG ULTRA ViRES AND
VOID IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. '
THIS WRIT PETi'I'1ON COMING ON FOR orzpyiirzs;_~*1ii«§é1i:;:_
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:--
ORDER
Learned Counsel for theV;3§;§1’EV§’io11e19shas VIi~1<-:&'.._Vz11""m:';¥111o
seeking withdrawal of the__\v1'it: pe.1..it'._1f0n."r._Thr: 1fi'<:n)p piaced
on record.
Acc:o1’c1i11gl:y.”‘1.h _’e Wifii :p=3{itiC.x1.”iS–hgfézby dismissed as
wEti}1draw;1’.A””‘ -. V’