1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28'?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2A0E1%0
BEFORE A
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B.
WRIT PETITION NO26678 OEILEB-A-EBMPI
BETWEEN
SR1 ASHWATNARAYANA RAO "
s/0 LATEHONNA BHAITA
AGED 80 YEARS. occ: FZETD -
ADD, NO. 137. SURVEYOLJR STREET; _
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE. V "';--.§,'--PETITIONER
[BY .I::)fi.x:I;';VA§';":ADV., FOR
' * LAW FIRM)
1. THE CQIVID/11SsroNL:1§:j'..'E'
BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
.;3ANGALoRE,,V_ 11111
v .. f1-H,E«EXEcUTNI: ENGINEER.
" 'sn_Uf;'H S~U_E$:DIVISION.
~. '--..BANG_A.1,,0RE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
' BANGALOOORE.
' T}:*IvEA1'&SSISTANT DIREC'£'OR{TOWN PLANNING)
.+"'+
n ; EHSUVARNA PARAVANIGE, SOUTH ZONE
_ BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE.
SMT. RATNAMMA
AGED 70 YEARS. OCC: NIL
W/ O LATE NARASIMHA MURTY
NO. 137, SURVEYOR STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
IEBANGALORE4. RESPONDENTS
2
{BY:SRI SHIVARAJ BPLLIAKKI. ADV.._ FOR
M/S.ASMOK HARANAHALLI A/S. FOR RE TO R3
SR1 H.S.RUKKOJI RAO, ADV/.. FOR C/R4]
THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTI.eLE”2’26’~ 3
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P_RAYIN’OIj’—TOI–.–_e’ I-
DIRECT THE OFFICE OF R1 TO 3 TO C.Q:\kIIéL .*.A_1″iVI”i’H’~« I
REQUEST {DATED 19.7.10 AND 6:08.10 PRObLI’cEI>._’_ATe-,_V ‘
ANENXURES-O & F RESPECTNELY, _AiIf;T’IIE’_’EARLI_ES:Ijj
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMI1§;Q~..\,..QN FOR _I5R’E’LI:vIINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, TH5 TI~I.EfiEOLLOwINO:
Heard the learned’ Venkatesh P.
Daiwaiv:tOi*”‘iv’I.[S,.Siiifaafu.ifriiz for the petitioner, Sri
ShivaravjxB’e11aVkki Haranahalli Associates
the respondent’ and Sri H.S.Rukk0ji Rae for
” ” «–.t{he7r_e:Sp_e.nt1ent NO.’4′;”‘ ‘V
u”_’petitiOner’S only grievance is that his
repreSent:–Iti:OIIS, dated 19.7.2010 and 6.8.2010
O””~.__v”{Anne;iuIIeS~D and F’ respectively} have remained
T “LmCO.1’3’sidered.
3. This petition is disposed of with a direction
to the Second respondent to consider the petitioner’s
3
said representations in acicordance with law. On
holding the spot–inspection, the second respondent 1′-nay
ascertain whether the construction put.
respondent No.4 is in aCCordanCe…w_i_th the”sa’n.<:tionedg
pian and the building bye~1aWs. éuiy~
the second respondent sha11'i.ss2._ie to
the respondent No.4. 'On ooI.3»sA1'fiering .the–:peti:tioner's
representations, the fourth
respondent's reply to the second
respondent; shfalli f_s.teps '5in*g_'a§:eordance with iaw
within three' meonth7s'tirne;"
4. No order “_s<:osts.
3d,.
Iudge