EN THE HIGH CO'UR'1' G? KARNATAKA, BANGALGRE
mag}; THES THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH . K
PRESENT
THE 1-10N'BL;3 MR. 13.9. DINA1{ARAi\E«,. ;:1im4§Fj%g*1;s§f:*;::EL%5 A
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsff1~2E V;
WRIT AP?EAL.~- P§o.6S26'f :i:30<;;jLB -5 R193;
BEFWEEN: "
DEXK Somashekargg-'V "
S/<3.1a}:e Sri K 3 '
Aged about 69 3%;e:31fs," ' «_ "
F'I°e$eI1t1yresiding Viki}; v'N£}..8'1., '
4% Cross, 1$€I9ia~i:1., ~ _ _
U A S L3'§r'0U$, Sanjfayanagar', M.
Bangalore-V560 O94. _ " " .. Appellant
(By S13' S:':ir1iv..ésa,V_'A€lv. for. Aaren Associates)
1"'. ._ '.__ByataIfay.%;ir£apura City
' Muzxiéiggai Council,
"'§3ya1£a1"a'yanap1n'a,
Bz:mga1ore--56O O92,
* : Represented by its Commissioner.
. I «V The Commissianer,
Byatarayzmapura City
Municipal Council,
Byatarayamapura,
Bangalorefiéf} O92. .. Respendents
IN.)
This WA. is filed under Section 4 of
High Court; Act, 1961, praying to set-aside t§_1c"1*;d._£§I'1'f Byatarayanapura City Municipal
V. _V(iL§;see.._' -jii'£*iS<V£;ir;tie:f1é
Vidyaranyapma was i11cIude'fi_.',,.,*\ Ieteex' *
plan was issued on fécrtitioxzer
put up eonstjmctioza of completed
the same in the completion of
censtruetiozg-'t:i3.e ieesesseci for tax by
the fiem the year 199'}?
98 and eaymg the tax regularly. It
is further gisrrgfied that petitioner was issued 3. notice
fiatefft' 1_.'20i}"5' «h3j__ethe Municipal Cjouneil stating that
Sunder Raj had submitted a cempiaint
theLt.'j_ {he petitioner has put up CO¥1Sf.I'1IC'[i{}1'l'iI1
7:;io1a£;;z'0nV"'o§' the sanction plan and wherefore the aforesaid
jbetitien was preferred.
The lwmed Single Judge by his order dated
» '4 1.2909 after hearing the ieazned eezmsel appearing for
'xé
the parties held that the Municipal Council has
included in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagare.
short BBMP') in the month of March, ~
respondents - Municipal Council having swim:
the BBB/’IF, the Municipal ishnot in
despite that the petitioner has…not_ in:1Lp1e.a’ded_the BBMP.
Accordingly, the writ , rejected. Being
aggieved by the.o§’der cfié-ited’::23.:1A.:’2Q{}?9,;the writ petitioner
has preferrer.i”‘this 1:5 ‘
4. ii::s:1ffei« for the appellant
and for the respondents.
V’ easel appearing for the petitioner
the Writ petitiotn was fixed in the year 2006
by the notice issued by the Qfld respondent
Counci} dated 25.31.2006. The said Municipal
has since been merged with the BBMP in the
month of March,2{)O7 and Wherefore the merger was made
‘ after fiiing of the writ petition, the Muriicipal Council was
in existence when the impugled notice was issued and the
\§}.
Wfit petition couid not be ciismissed. He submitxed that
the matter may be remitted by permitting the to
impleaé the BBMP.
6. We have given careful g’eenside:7at.ie:ii:”
ccmtentiens urged by the 1eamed:”eeu1ise1
the parties and scrutinized the”–n§7a£exia1 :’eeerfl<*L
'7. The scrutiny of Sh{}W that the
Writ petition Waefiled i11"'ti:e::}gIea4t.':i3§{3€i£§ aggieved by
the I1etice ._2mi: ieepefifient — Municipai
Councilwyiziatefi fact that the Murlieipai
Councii hae been elefgefigeifil the BBMP, the writ p€1'iti0£1
Jgae iznpleading the BBMP as one of the
V.'-reeé15e:1de1;te.;'«vffizerefore, we held that the order passed by
the Judge rejecting the writ pefitiorz on the
gg-oune fhe BBMP is not made a party, is iiable to be
eetfieifie by remitting the matter with a direction to
ee'V*izn§ 1ead the BBM? as sought for by the petitioner and
jéhereafter dispose off the writ petition in accordance with
law. Aeeerdingly, we pass the following:
\R'