Narayana Kharvi vs Kothwal Sheshayya Shetugar on 30 October, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30*" DAY OF OCTOBER, 20091

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.P.D.DINAKARAi\!LCHIEF--3UST§(:E~:    

AND  
THE HON'8LE MR. JUSTICE.'/§S_§~jOi{"EL"HINC%*§ii'3E§'3'§?ti  K
WRIT APPEAL No.3763[:=D10:_9.(xLE§REE»);  
BETWEEN J 'A 3   V
Narayana Kharvi,   'V
S/0 Bikka Kharvi, '

Aged about 53 years,   
R/0 Kharvi Keri,   

Kundapura,      ~ _ 
District Udugzi;       Appeliant

(By VM/s.-Singh"a%'jtid't'S.i_Ti'ghAssociates, Advocate)
AND L A' 4' 

1;.' 'V "  _Kci'l*:h1;va_i..cVSh.eshayya*----~Sf¥erug ar,
 3,39 Sheshayya Sherugar,
 L Aged' cabeéit 44' yea rs,
'R_/'o'__Ma"sa'ti.,_En.t'efprises,

SriVVenk_atra_m'ana Arcade,
Kuri'dap--ura, 'District: Udupi.

 ](Zit~',z__ Mu'ni:cipa| Councii,
'=."i{urad«_apura,
'Rewesented by its Commissioner,

  Kgmdaptsra, District: Udupi.

   The President,

City Municipal Councéi,
Kundapura, District: Udupi.



4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Udopi, Udupi District.  Respondents

(By Sri B. Veerappa, AGA)

This Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of the
High Court Act praying to set aside the order passeti..,iVn~..t_he_ writ._

petition No.17740/2008 dated 29.07.2009».

This Writ Appeal coming on for :’P,rei:’iA_Arri’Eiiary’–

day, Ashok B. Hinchigeri. 3, delivered the foEiowing3:rV.,
; Q n g MsFlN1f_ ” i ”

Appreciating the expia_natioi”i” weconclonel the
delay of 41 days in Accordingly,

Misc.W.10445/2009’iis,:,1allo:§yed’..:? –

2. ‘against the order, dated
29.07.20(i_9_ learned Single Judge in
W”.i=«,.No.i%74io/zooal’éiio–w’ing the writ petition filed by the
responaeni. rm. fu

3. thehlappeilant is running a kiosk on the storm

«:._’iwat.erAAdr.ainV” unauthorisedly, the learned Single Judge

z/,’jdi__i*ecteid the local body, namely, the second respondent City

‘i,f,’4i~~.i\4_tiiiicipal Council to remove it, if the appellant fails to

$35!.

vacate and to hand over the open space to the___ said

Municipal Council within three weeks.

4. It is not in dispute that the property«.o.An’::V.wi§.i:chAthe

appellant has his petty shop Zbelo-nags

Municipality. The said propertyi’_’is_V neither

appellant nor any lease or iicence__i’sv_girante’d«to hire to run

the shop.

6. Nola; that itself is dismissed,
nothing _’sui;vive*s any consideration of
stay. Accordingly, it is
agmipssga. . ffl

sci/..

Chief Justice

Sd/-

I UDGE