Mrs R Swarnalatha W/O K H Ajay vs State Of Karnataka Reptd By Its … on 2 March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG)§\i,§)RE

BATED THIS THE 2"" DAY or MARCH E 

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 

warr PETIHQN NQJ/'97 0E2oo6.',  k%

BETWEEN :

1 Mrs.R..$'WARN§ALATHA«.V  E E 
W/Q.VZH5';jAJ_AY'« E  3 
AGED EAEOUTE  
RlA'W0x: f382:%E27"" STAGE
 SHARADHIRDEVENAGARV'
'._M'ts'SOR§;?'}a._S7EO'*Q23.' E  PETITIONER

(By M/S4_4K.RVVNAG.E'fi1:'f)ER§ &
smt. ABU"BACKER'SHAF'I, ADVOCATES)

      KARNATAKA

REE-Tc». BY ITS SECRETARY
 v«.i3'E53AR"IMENT OF uaatxw DEVELOPMENT
u VIDHANA SOUDHA
"BANGALORE.

    THE COMMISSIONER

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MYSORE.  RESPONDENTS.

W”

.. 3 ..

(By Smt : M.c.NAGAsHREE, HCGP, FOR R1
Sri H.c.sHIvARAMu, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)

THIS wRrr PETITION Is FILED UNDER«jAR_’TICVLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.A’VP.R:5;3_’ING
TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED IIs.3.2Do;5

ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2…….§4ARKED As
ANNEXURE-G R DIRECT THE”‘R’2.ITC} CONSIDER TI!-IE’; *
APPLICATION O. 050246 wtITHITHEADDIREDIsTRATION
NO. 37899 Dr. 23.1.1991V’«t_SUBMI’FE’E’D «Tssv-IIHE

PETITIONER ALONGWITII%TREQIIIRED FEE AND
DEPOSIT MONEv- M.&.RKE’DA HERE Ass ANNEXURES- B1
TO 83. i.

Tir-ZIEES”i?EiITIO:N.,,¢§)M-INTG OAIROR HEARING THIS
DAY, CQQRT’ MABE._THE HOLLOWING:-
‘ . ‘ . ‘I
for a writ of certiorari to
quash DDtiDrs;é-ment dated 8-8-2005 vide

i$I~n{,e.F§V:<u:fe-€3AA"issIIDd by the 2"" respondent and further

V d::i'r:_e:C*I9"t!II:e:.2"" respondent to consider her appiication

.' {Dr at!DtDf2e:ht of a site.

~ I have heard the learned counsel for the

V.D’etitiDner and Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsei

oft”

“.4…

the impugned endorsement cancelling the allotment.
The 2″” respondent accordingly cance!ie_d___ the

allotment on 2-9-2004. Thereafter the

endorsement has been issued to the petitifofnerelgil’ A’

4. Sri K.R.Nagendre, leeirned’roo’unsel.:_”e.r;;)earin’g

for the petitioner submittee that_:it.. is on.i’?”A’d’\ie

bonafide error that the respondent”h.a_sr-eancgelled the

allotment of the sitejgmadeinin’.Ahe.ij_tavour. she has
already intimated change of
address noted by the
V’ H
the learned counsel for
responoent that she has only given her

i’~addressV:Vand: not her residential address and

‘ ;n-enceV’thetre is no error in cancelling the allotment of

“site in ‘thenelvravour.

W1″