" WPNo.9494i20G%
L A ~ Ms Buiming,
in THE man Coum' 013* KARNATAKA AT BANGAL0R$_T~~%.%
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY 09 JANUARY ; j--i .
BEFORE
THE normm on. Jusncn é ; 7
vmrr PETITION N0.949§/20Ci$'(GM-CP C§: 'T; V
BETWEEN: '
Sribishivakumar, A
S10 S:-ES Na1ayauhSwém*'.-,V V ' '
A2e=44yw-rs, " A .
No.4, 1" F1o<_)z',--..}.'f* * V
Hebhal, * .4 .
Bangalore-560 0'24. . * -. ' ' Petitioner
(By Sri A for petitioner)
AND: ' V' V %
S/oi Sr'-i Ab::u1Ra:wo9s%%%
'~._, at No.34-Q, A '
Near Ofioe,
_ _HCi?I_)a1, Road,
" " ga" m. xe-559 024.
_ The State of Karnataka,
' -.R_ep*. by its Secmtary to Govecmmcnt,
" Revenue Dcparmcnt,
'H »
W P N0.9494/2008
3. The Special Deputy Commissiozmr,
Bangalore Urban Ilistrict,
4. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore North Tank,
Podium Block,
V V Towers,
Banga£orc--56O 00 1.
5. The Tahsildar, _ J _ _V
Bangalore North Taluk,
Kids Kemp Building, V '
KGRoad, 5 _ - '
O09. " Respondents
(By Amafmd c
(R-253 and S unémpmscntcd)
[Govt Adm, Ext R4'(ahsent}] .
--I - Rn
This Writ Petition filed "under Articles 226 it 227 of the
Cons13'tutioa;1_{of Endia, to praying to quash the impugned
o1de7r'{Anm'x1}rc-«M}VvAciated 1353:2006 passed by the IX Add}. City Civil
Judgfi. B1'-.'1;ga::k)'1E;, .ozfi._vI.A-III in O S 910.2076/2004 and 83%! the
Petition. = _
This }"etit1T;t$x'1-;§:i51A11ing on for hearing mm day, the Court mme
ORDER
‘ ” petitioncrlimpleeading applicant is before this Court for
the oI’dt::r dated 13.3.2006 passed on LA»-EH fixed in 0 s
[L_¥[%
w P No.9eay2oos
3
No.20’76[2004 on the tile of xx Add]. cityeivig mgg
City at Am1e;xure~M.
2. Learned Counsel for the that the
respondent No.1 has filed NO6.2 to
5/ Government Oflieezs Aiabr ” other reliefs
with reference to M at Hebbal,
Bangalore-Bellary :s1vi’bmits that in w P
No.47599/200$ present petitioner was
arrayed as msfiggdefit ra§}’%j;a§de~ writ Petition was disposed of
on 10.2.200{l respondent No.1 to approach the
appitipriafij rogum” i’or”‘appmpflam relief as the relief cannot be
of its powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the
e zgpnstimfim’ the petitioner herein should have been made
_ gt 15etitioner was not made as a patqty to the suit find
A’ No.1, the petitioner made an impiwding
finder Order 1 Rule 10(2) of cm seeking permission to
.oome:oi:”zecord as co–defcndant, but the trial Court erred in 1e3ect1′ ‘ng
W P N034-94/2903
4
3. I have paused the order dated 10.2.2004 at
That Writ Petition was fiked by the respondent No.1
oficers of the Government/respondent Noel ta 4_ _
Jagmeesh, Keshavakuma}? Mane ..e:¢y-L
as respondent Noe.5,6 and 7. The Wes’;
respondent No.1 herein to restzraijziv. to V’
3/Governmmt Oficers from “‘demo}iehi1t,¥g’j’
without deciding the or .. That Writ
Petition, as Qf liberty appromh
the competentV..Givi1 the petitioner was made
as xespondent7N’o.’7” not e good fiound to contend that
the petitioner ua._’_’pmpVer_ party for the purpose of
adj_u{licatiom}l:.’ 51*» the %%%%% fédmincexy, the petitioner is not an
contention of the petitioner that he is one
respondent N0. 1 has enczeached upon the
= up a eonetzmetion and thexeibre he wants to
t the suitsin the interest of general public, holds no water.
$153011 has no locus stxandi and if he is not a pmper and
party for the purpose of adjudication, he cannot be made
fifialty to the suit. It is not a public interest litigation, where the
W P
doctrine of locus standi can be relaxed “f:».t_=:A
permitted to participate in the Th: hézs *
rightly rejected the appfication. I see Tty in the
impugned order.
4. In the result, Writ samcis hcmcby
dismissed. 1 ” C ‘ ‘
. . ‘ . ‘I