Karnataka Badigedarara … vs State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2009

 s*mf_z'$ OP' .KA RNATAKA

'4 V' ' ., BxAi"?_GALOR¥:1-1.

 2;'. "r§§E"bEPUTY COMMISSIONER
= "   BPANGALQRE DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

  BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

IN THE HIGH COBRT or KARNATAKA,     _  

DATED arms TI-IE zrm may  
"W933   . 4%   Z 
THE I-IOIBPBLE ma.   
wmgrr rmtyrxon  £fifi§l§ii_£P_j

_l:3_E_1'_¥..._'W_E....___EN ._

KARNATAKA BAQIGEDARARA :   

KSHEMABHiVRUDH1I{EI¥DR_A._A  _ j .

SAMITHI (R) BY rrs.SE,cRETA'R5Y.  :

SM'? G P SEETHA"'LAE{§:fiMI,.,_ 'V _ * "

W/O. G UMASHA-NE  ._

R70. 650, GMJ H_()USE,a  "  

NEAR SWAYAM.RO.AI}   _ 

KAMAKSHEPALYA~,.. BANGALORE" » 560079.
5' " _ ,   PETITIONER

'{1.3y" PETER, ADV.)
ANI5:-.  u "

V BY  VSECREFARY, SEPT. OF REVENUE,
 M.S.BUI_ILDING, AMBEDKAR ROAD,

CORPORAWON OFFICES
BANGALORE.  RESPONDENTS

{By Sri ; R DEVADAS, AGA FOR R2 )

ffr<g$:r:::._Vthe petition averments, the petitioner

action of the authorities is not in ,

rule of law, I am not

submission. In the first place_,' it the to '

file necessary application toiivfiigistsr as

required by Section iésvenue

Act, 1964 and if so dons, to believe as

to Why the 'atifion 'on the said
application. V.'-gllisgation that the
BBMP fitiastei matcria} is not
sufi'icient- énpugh -15 the said aliegation.

RBI6VaI1§ 'mate1'iaai-» pésrticulars of the dumping not
is relief. Petition is accordingly,

Iudge