High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M.J.Chikkanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri M.J.Chikkanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.--___
DATED THIS THE 16*" DAY or AUGUST, 2010 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AsHo:<»o.,.H,1N:;%i:e'ER;°   it

WRIT PETITION No.24995/2o°10 ii*.ALBi5a.:;i:"i).,"   

BETWEEN:

Sri MJ. Chikkanna,

S/0 Javaregowda,

Aged about 45 years,

Councilor of CMC, Mandya, V V

R/0 2845, 5*" Cross,   

Gandhinagar, Mandyaflity, _ ,_ .   

Mandya Taluk and ,D'istri__ct.._»_ ~. :« _  jg: ,  Petitioner

( By S_ri:-   ifitdyocate)
AND:   _. V  %  .
1. The State of' Kar'na:ta.i'<a,'~., 
Represented, by, his . Principal Secretary,

Urban -Deveio"pment' Department,
 _, M.SV.» Building, Ba nga_l_oArr;=.-.

2.  The..Ass_is'tan.t'Commissioner of
 iM'an_dya_Subv-Division and
'i he" Retu'rn_i'_ng 'Officer,
CMC, Mandya, City, Mandya.  Respondents

— (By Nataraj, AAG and Sri R.Devdas, AGA)

“:lThislyi.f.rit petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

V.”_’–.Cons~tit’uti’0n of India praying to quash the notification dated

–2j9._7;’201’%0 issued by the Government as per Annexure–D; and

it ” This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this

day, the Court made the following:

9£_¥3_|3..B.

Pursuant to the interim order granted by this

12.8.2010, the petitioner subrnitted an elaborate ‘

to the respondent No.1. The responder.1.ti~Nr)4.A1 it

the contentions raised by the petitioner”s arm’

elaborate order, dated 16.8.2010 dAow._r1 vthev-.:betitiioner’s
request for a change in the reservationVV.cate’g..ory for–the”..office of
the President of City Municipaillicogunculv _

2. Sri K.M. _.,E\.|a:t;a-_ra3′, irthel_:’V§.ea.rfi~r§¢1.._q_/additional Advocate
General brings to iseiected as the Vice-

President of pal; Cob-nc~ii’, Manaya.

3. Whether the o’r’clf;er».’t:’a:teri~” 16.8.2010 is tenable or not,
whether the goetitionevr can c’ha«i”lenge the said order despite his
getting ¢hi’rnsei.fi.elected”aswtihe Vice–President may have to be

exarn’inéd_r. petitioner challenges the said order.

V7._’Reserving.._4the,l.ibe:rty to the petitioner to challenge the said

‘ * -oriJe_r;-».this petition is rejected.

saw.

runes

rip