S Nataraj vs Bangalore Development on 19 March, 2009

 AND«:.{  'V 

V'  vn: Dévefiépmeni Authority

' V V.,.Bangaio§1"é;.~20 .. RESPONEENT

A 57;:-5;v S;1' P.S.i)i11es11 Kumar, Ac£v.,'}

IN THE HIGH coum" or KARNATAKA AT 8A1\§.$_;é'§l;VC?;§'r":T:.'V
marge THIS me 19" may or MARC_§{;"2:Q(?9.:"   %% T   
BEFORE-7;: %   %  
THE HONBLE MR.JUST"ICE.MQHAN"' 5H'ANT.ivj§i.§fiQ:tjVDiAl'§v
wszrr PETITION No. :c;5a(2oo3£ (3 g_4Qi

i5h3'i'WEE3N: V  A '  " ' 

S.Nataraj   'V «

Aged60yt=ar8. -.«   .    

S/maze  .     " 

    '

Chamundinagai'; § BIdc1::_  «_  V'

Rajajins.gar__'*j.    
Banga1prc~--1_0'*Ij_..    _ _-- ..PET'ITIONER

(By G. v.'1?_t;imma1g{;;é;::§; ~ «. 

'}3y'it$« Cdnijzxissiener
Sankcy  '
K1imz--u'a=.Pa1'1{ West



-3"

mem bars; that EDA has granted such xequests; 

third persons who are the adjoining plot  M

the petitioner's request is not ;'ci6r1si<i_e'zfect;,«  'v:§:'itL"*'é

petition is filed.

Sri P. S. Dinesh kétilizzgar,  V' adyocatéAAa§§pea1ing
on behalf of BEA oppesgg   
3.  not made any

representgti<3x;'::--  fliigiuafization at' his
occupation --ove-53.:  _ saw __i;.1- question, the petitioner

seems td '*--,1}a*.r¢   notice to the respondent

his a€iv{>{::§;§.teA:o11 8.7.2008 as per Am1exure–,B.

said n9ti 0e__itse1f can be treated as a representation

–. péfitioner and the same may have ta be

‘VVcons;id<gx*§:d the respondent in accaxdance with law.

A ..j;A.(fc6r{1ingly, the following order is made:-

;§'he I'€$p(}I1(i€}'1t is directed to consider the

' rézpresentation fijeci by the petitirmer vide Axmexure-«£5,

V

.4-

dated 8.’?.2008, in accordance with law on me1i£3–,’j as

expeditiously as possibie.

Writ petition is disposed of_accqrdi_:f1″g’ly;.:’.’; V

ficklu ._