High Court Karnataka High Court

Syed Javeed Ali vs The Chief Electoral Officer on 6 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Syed Javeed Ali vs The Chief Electoral Officer on 6 October, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06'?" EAY OF OCTOBER 2010
PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR.J.S.K}--IEHAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND T °

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A.S.BOPf~§§gT.NAV~.   -

Writ Petition Nos. 6487-6490;/.201O(LB'¥'B?Q!'P;i3ILjA.V   A

Between:

1. Syed Javeed Ali

Son of Syed Majid Ali

Aged about 42 years

R/a 467, 431 Cross.__  _  _   
Gova Garden. D.J .aa1,n  
Bangalore -- A560   '

2. Syed Ajeélii,  "yeaI_'s_'
Sotiof Syed  " .\
Sonriappaa G'a.rc':e1: _ T'  "
D.J.Hai1i   V ._  
Ir3a"ngal0re'* --. V560 045

'V   1§e'h_aman

_Sof1-.(jf Mohammed Samiulla
 Aged. "ab0uft"35 years

'T ' _ Resid.e'n?£._ Sf N0225

.'M0di Road left side
J0'*.3e§;h Garden and

 * :,Soni1appa Garden
 [);.J.Ha11i

T Bangalore -- 560 045

T   Kamamddin

Aged 45 years
Son of Mahaboob Wali



Modi Road right side
1331 Cross, D.J.Halli
Bangalore ---- 45 .. Petitioners
(By Sri S.P.S.Khadri, Advocate) l
And:

1. The Chief Electoral Officer
Opposite to Press Club
Cubbon Park
Bangalore, Karnataka

2. Bangalore Bruhath Mahaliagara Paiil~_:e'* - 
Commissioner    
N.R.Square
Bangalore

3. The Under Secretary to-the  V
Government     
Bangalorelil I)ep__artrrient_' M V
Bangalorefjf'. " ' .   " V .. Respondents

i}’hes_eA’vJ.:fitg Vpetitio*r1__s are filed under Articles 226
and 22_7l’of the ~.C~onstit1.1t’ion of lndia praying to direct
the respondents 1′ to quash the notification

NO.KA/BG;/,G’PQ/2515;C2PP-472009-2010 Clt. 23.2.2010

vide’ }\n.neXure,:B and to make Ward~61, S.K.Garden for

‘~ rnin’ori__ties.__and “res-erve the above area and etc.

.—–vr–*”

petitions coming on for orders this day,

X Cliief J’u”stiee:;’n”iade the following:

ORD ER

is J.S,_Khehar, ca. {Oral}

it The petitioners did not enter appearance on

V””‘22.07.2O10. They also did not enter appearance on

23.08.2010. None represents the petitioners, even
today. Even costs as per direction contained in the
motion bench order dated 22.07.2010 have
paid. _ _ _ .4

2. Petitions are dismissed for 1f1o:zV–piQs’eei;tiot1-..A 1;’

Justice

Pmg/ .,

yes/no