Jyothi C Mouli W/O Sri. J. … vs The Secretary Housing And Urban … on 24 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Jyothi C Mouli W/O Sri. J. … vs The Secretary Housing And Urban … on 24 June, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *