T S Vivekananda Kumar vs The Commissioner on 24 February, 2010

 

IN THE HIGH COURT 01%' KARNATAKA. 

,1"

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY or FEBi"{U;.$S;§§Y';::2O1!:J'4 " = 

Tm: I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTI--{;E  MOHALVREDDY  *

WRIT PETITION No. 30¢?"-{)_S~»_QF &2o«1oA (T,i3~REs)

BETWEEN

1.

TS. Vive1:anand.a'Kufnar*,._'=__ _ «V
S/o 1a_t::T,V  Sifiikalita Set'.ty.;_"--  _
Age: 50 yea':-so R/«o '£=./[.K._£'..'r:)--.2»f;»ES/'$9358,
2nd :Main.Ro'a:;,» 'A _    V.  
Near~V.Saty'1:aT1ar.ay'ar1"Te-rnple, 

~ 'Ga11<'flfii-nagéiji  _
Tumku'r."5.5'i«2 I512';-.,.__ . '

T. S. 4'Sad'a11T:i1TcAi'a  " " N 
S/oiateo TL}. Srikanta Setty,

' ~Age: 5'?-.y£:-afs, R/o M.K. No.245/257.

V2"? Mair1"Roadn«

. Neaf S_atya11araya11 Telnpie,
'~  »(v}at1d.hin_agar,
'  572 102.

..PET'iTiONI%ZR

 Sri;  L'(:'}oLV\.rindra3', Adv.)

 A N 

The Commissioner,
City Municipal Council,
Tumkur ««~ 572 102.

Dr. DR. Moham
S/o Rangappa. Age: major,
R/o M.K. No.24?/259.

2*" Main Road. M



 

Near Satyanarayan Temple.
Gandhirlagar.
Tumkur ~ 572 102.

3. GR. Chariclrashekar,

S/O late G. Rudrappa, . 
Age: Major. R/O M.K.NO_.244/'Z56,
Ist Floor, 2"" Main ROad_.''-._ " '
Near Satyanarayan 'FeII1Vp__ L'
Gandhinagar.  --« 
Tumkur ~--~ 57"2 vi__O'2_.

4. The Environmen ta]

P10tNO.Q'T._     .  »
Antharasaifiahaili Irldiistriai -A1<€.a.§
Sira Roadij L!';ngapuI'az, V

TuriF1ku;*"---__ 572 .106';    T '

5. V'i'T1ie"A.sisistaif1i' ¥;§Xeeutive._"Eh§ineer (Eie.},
 Bangalvo-fie«VEleietI'<iOit3I__ :'3u,pp1y
Coznpany {B"ESiC.C.)'M]¢'. ,S.S. Puram

Su..b~DiVisi0r'1';.' . 
'£'urr1'«3r;u1' e  02:' ..RESPONDENTS
 Writ"'Pvet.itiOn is filed under Articles 226 and 227

 AOikihe:"ConMs*tiiuti0n of India praying to direct the R. 1, 4 and 5
 ' ,.tO  immediate action to stop the unauthorized use of the
 S«C;'1CC}1l1:€ .vpre;inises for commercial activity by R2 and R3.

_ ff§s1s§'.v'PiET1T1ON COMING ON FOR PRLHEARING THIS
BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The grievance of the petitioners, as aired by his

learned counsel is that the M respsnde:-nt — City

Municipal Council, and 4″! respondent «~ Assistant

M

representations Annexures and “C” are of the year

2006.

3. The 15*’ and 4* respondents

actions in terms of the notices Annexure-s and

respectively, there is ri.o_. reason to beliex/he” ‘that’*the.,

authorities would not con(:»]._ti(ie thle~._oroeeedings and

pass orders. in acco.i:c’i’a,ncC: -.1a.W’.~~.as expeditiously as

possibie.

to the petitioners to make a
representautionllleneiosing a copy of this order to the

reslpoindentsi l’i10._§3,ing that the proceeding would be

‘_Co}f1ti:<1_u~e(i.,_ "and concluded. petitions are accordingly

"disVposedT"sjof,'ti= V

Sd/**
Iudqe

KS