M/S Empire Publicity Services vs Bangalore Mahangara Palike on 5 December, 2008

IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(3fi--LC)}§_'_§2'V»I' 1. ' " 

DATED THIS THE 05?}: DAY OF DECEMTé§$R ?.2Qés{    ~A  

BEFORE 

ms HON'BLE MR. JUs'rIcE    A

WRIT PETITIQN No.259s3:c;F 2064 '{_V'Li:*3~I§.§\:II;--V')
B Em:   _     

1 was EMPIRE ¥'i.¥8LICI*I'Y SERV¥CE--S.  
no 69/ 1, i.ALE3AG}~I- §*€}P2'1'"POA£>._ '
sANGALQR:::«,REP 23': 32.9? * 
MsJAI¢KUM£;R . 1   
MAJOR    " 

_  K V  V PETFPIONER
(By snfis  
AND:  V. V   _ ti ..
1 BANGKLORE §xAt§Am;t_§ARA PALIKE

;J "C_ROAD; BANGALORE
 "I:R*r;1}f B1; comma ____ -A «

 »  ~ .. 1;;-;PuT¥:'::.iREcroR (anvmnssmawrsg

 B.A N-GAf..ORE.f MAHANAGARA PALIKE

» 
' _ BA§§Gfil._{'JRE
  'V   RESPONDENTS

” ‘ ” — ._ V’ “‘{:§3g Lsrizmsiwx HARANAHALLI , ADVOCATE 3

= WP. mm Ursinm A.R*r1<::LEs 225 35 227 <31? THE
cowmflwag OF INDIA Pizavxm To Quasa THE DEMAND

NC%'I'¥CES ANNEXURES A TO A9 ET. 15.6.2004 MAEEE IN NO.

'A"I'(2P3PR.107, 112, 115,117,1:.s,119,12o,121,z22 AND 126 OF
2904-05 iSS{JED BY THE 522 AND TO DIRECT THE
" RES?ONDE£~I'{'S T0 PERMIT THE PE'i'E'i'£ONER TO DISPLAY THE

SAID ADVER'TISEMEN'¥'S OR 'THE SCHEDULE I-IOARDINGS
AFTER COLLECTING ADVERTISEMENT TAX AT THE RATES
SPECIFIED IN SCHEBULE Vii! PRIGR TO ITS SUBSITTUTION.

Kz:

This writ petition, coming on for A.
hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court, 3 _

foilowing:

In View of the memo filgd i.1ea1i1ie;i1’A’ ‘V

for the petitioner, petition is tiisffiinissed I305;

cm/«