IN1EHBHKHiCOURT(H?KARRATAKA,BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF' JUNE, I BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE I_ WRIT PETITION No.71G4_ OFQCIU9 (LB.§af3s) JYOTHICMOULI w/0 SRI. .3. CHANDRAMOULI AGE:54 YEARS ' R] AT N(;)]':§é3; INDIRANAGAR, B;'5I'€(}fi.I,O»R§i:=~5600'?5 - - = PETITIONER (By Sri _: K SHIVMI, RAD, Aijv ) I _____ ._ ':*1aEI"':";,§$Ci%§v::.*TARY I "HoUs:N_G'AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT "---DE-.§5AE?'FMENT STATE 01? KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA " I BANGALORE-560002 "THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN flEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ET. 4.3 % VIDE
-2-
ANNEX~O AND ET C.
THIS PETITION COMING on FOR’ r»t12L.r:AEARfi}§G, fmis
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE I5’0LLO}VIi’1§G;.?
932%:
The petitioner’s a Site
bore fruit when ‘%ve10pment
Authority (MUDA}.1jy lettee allotted site
bearing No._.I’..:?,§_1A€f”-:_§Q’:: stage, 11 Phase,
Mysore, dt. 8.2.2005 for
noncom:p1ia–:t1eeV’t”iv’itti: ‘ “eo11iiitions. Aiieging that,
despite the change of address, the
_. petitiener net, received either the letter of
“_a11Q;tme11tA_V the cancellation, moved the State
Gmnme:;e savhence by letter dtd.19.11.{)5, directed
4- the xxeeonsider the re-allotment on payment of
e on the value of the site if put to auction, and if
altetted. The petitioner filed W.P.I0229/0’7, to
_’4″‘.i:eeplement the letter dt.19.i1.05, whence this court
having considered the Govt letter dt. 19.11.2005
directing the MUDA to consider the petitioner’s request
irk
-3-
for Ieallotment of the site by collecting the ”
held that, that letter was not issued in exereiseiiofi K
conferred either under the statuteoi’
accordingly, declined to issue _a of n1aI1<iai1:11is,"3byi '
order (it. 2.8.2007. That whent.sceght.. :5 be
reviewed in Review Petition _,'
Single Judge by ordexfidt.
dismissed the or fact that the
petiiionei jurisdiction of the
Govem11’iesit’* ‘ Urban Deveiopment
Authority Wiiich. divas pending. The State
ordeiidt. 4.3.2009 Annexure~O, rejected
-‘and hence this writ petition.
counsel for the petitioner submits that
I iotder impugned is cryptic occasioning gave
” …_””i.njt;stice, calling for interference.
3. From the orders in the writ petition and review
petition of the learned Single Judge of this court what is
M
.4»
patent is that the petitioner did not call in question.._the
order casnceling the allotment but when .4
enforce the letter (it 19.1 1.2005 of the Secrets ,V
Development, when found not traceable’ to
or rule, mandamus was 1ejected_,i’«–nevert°neIese ”
petitioner appears to “invoked the
jurisdiction of the (3over3fiment”‘untier”eS_ection63of the
Act. The State Goverriniexitv for the
records the cancellation of the
a11oment”U5r_9;en% in law and did not find
lega} gjrotagideiwtev vwith the order of cancellation.
In .m§r cefisidered opinion, in the circumstances, the
be said to be either arbitrary or
i _illegai=– it sufiers from legal infirmity calling for
_. _o ‘ mterferenoe.
C “The writ petition is, aeeording1y_ rejected.
Sod/*-
Iudge