High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri A M Ehesan Ulla Patel vs The Deputy Commissioner on 24 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri A M Ehesan Ulla Patel vs The Deputy Commissioner on 24 June, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 9 'V v«.T-TVBE:"AsSiS"-MN? COMMISSIONER
 ' ~  .  *3 TA}i'S:IL9AR

  5.5 CHIEF GFFICER

IN THE men coum' ore' KARNATAKA,    _
DATED THIS THE 24m my 0;' JUNE_».,~V2"lA$§9:  I 3
BEFORE  . '  K V
THE I-IOEPBLE MR. JusTzcE_4gAn§'---nééumy  
I WRIT PETITION' 140.523   

BETWEEN

SEE A M EHESAN ULLA PATEL~.  . -  '
SfG H M 1:'AzAuLLA;.$A1~1EB:   A ' 
AGED ABOUT 5'2v4Yi%1A_RS"  _  H   .
R/AT 10 warm, ,aN,JAN-EYA'Tfr:*e.ADAivA;%§EV'
HARAPPANAHALILI, ' «:¢;'_:g\VAr'ir3ERE ._  V

 T' A'   _   PETITIONER
{By Sri {B M SiDfL3A§?PA, A.1j>V..) -- -

AND

2 EH3 %.{_)E15U*;'3{' CGMEAISSIQNER
1:19rR;cr.

HARAPANAHALLI TQWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

5 REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA STATE LOKAY"U§{'§'A

\%

Ge; /

 



3 V'p8fitil'3f}€if'f}1}1.1}fCha$€§WlAV acre: of land under 3. registered

 10- E994, and gut up construction of

"* 5i;' <«.__13:3;gme1étv.q_§:}f building tax. It is the ailsgation of the
VA  Tijétitififier that the 431 respondent issued a flotice dated

-3:_3.:2(){)8 AI}I1€X1}I'(‘)-“E” stating that the petitioner

~ ‘ <%:r:c:mac:hed upon property belonging to the templa and

M S BUILDiN'GS,BANGALORE 1. Raspéwpéfirsfis 2

(By 3:-3; R DEVADAS, AGA FOR R1 'I'.€3rR.'_3)' _
(BY SRi. V'? RAYA REDDY, ADV FOR R4)___ j; _
(av SR1. GOUTHAMADEV £:.U1..LAL, A§)V¥§"<'GR R5)_ ._ _ ~

THIS WRIT PETITION IS F3.LE.:3 UNEER .ARr1cLEs..::26
Arm 227 OF THE coNs'r1TuT;O=:~{V CEF' INDEA PEAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTICE mt 12.3.20{38_ I$sUEm«BY THE R4
PRGDUCED AS ANX~G To 'mg WRI'E'— PETITION AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETIT1QN;"' :c0MI.h.;<}__ om FOR
PRELIMINARY HEA;RING,"If\'i*–'.I3' '€':. '.OU?, .,{m1s BAY, THE
COURT MADE 'IfEi'E««.§f' C)LL£)W;ING: Z

Pefiitibzxefivf, be _i:Iié owner of tine land
bearing 'Sy';N<}V….:f£arapanahai]i, which was

granted _ to =E3_éid.ai* from whom the

a — supply of electricity followed by

was dirmteé to vacate the premises. It is asserted that

M

Annexures "E" and "G" direct the p€1iZ'fi1i{)I}..f¥.I,"v_A4_:'ii{)VV Veggcatei» V' "

the premises without an opportunity 4'

4. It is elsewhere .

distinction between the iii-» ‘:{“‘c’)’Iicwe'<i1 in a
quasi judicial proceeickmifgi £_é_e?:mmistrafive
proceeding in principies of

natural j¥.1st;iCé- _ ». »-

5. {The _ made out a case for

interferencefdie iiieciieliowed in part. The notice

dated’ Z_;2″~{)3~2{){}8V_VA:inei:ure~”G” in so far as it reiates to

ijetitioner to vacate the premises within 7

dié;y.s”‘i’i§s«ii The 4711 respondent is directed to

V consider t§1e’;’5etitioner’s explanation A:rmexure~”H” and

K ” < .a.1fcie:'s thereon, in accordance with law.

36155
Tudgré"

KS