High Court Karnataka High Court

The City Municipal Council vs The Commissioner For Persons With … on 6 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The City Municipal Council vs The Commissioner For Persons With … on 6 January, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
 

m "mg HIGB COURT 0;? KARNEJAKA aT"B3éé'}s«.5;L=:§_;§EA%-V,, a V'

 

DATEIZ': THES THE am m¥7¢;:1:* U25.R Y~ 

PRESENT W_ 

THE H'()N'BLE3 MR. RD. sIf§;a§§AR_AN,'C';iiE{§«' msrzca

8;«;*rwEEN:;  

I

 2eTN£?%%   
THE} HOBPBLE :~g1Vge:*.J_u§§.%:41-$131"v,.G:.~:SABHAH;'r

 *jgxg;?:_1'_g;13>_1;>g3*.AiL N1Q;38__5,v*2r}08

'Ff~I£§';~€)1'I"T5{ M'ii:;re1ci~PA1. <;:mcz;:,
%:,3¥iAPJ'PJ}i%?e*§'{'VN"A   -- I

R9EP§?E3SE:N'E7}:3AI) BY as JSOMMISEOSNER,
cHAN'NApATN;a '~ _ "  _ "

RAM;wAGAR.a ii?IS'E'.R'}(YF...   .APPELLANT

  g1-3  A V G }§S'SO_Q{ATES

 féH'z2,5"'{:Qr»§Miss1oNER FOR
Pmasozvfs WITH msaammas IN

KA=RN1"iTKA,

NO.40, THAMBUCHEWY ROAD,

 ..  cox TOWN, BANGALORE 5.
"  SIDD'ARAMU @ RAMU

8/ O LATEPUTTARAMEGGWDA
C] OSH IVALI N GAIAH

AGEB ABOUT 35 YEARS,

5TH CROSS,

RAJA KEMPEGOWDA
E3X'f'EZNSfON,



 

CHANNAPATNA, '_ ..  _ _ 3, »  ~ _ 
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,   RES'PQ:wE«'mfS'-V =

(By Smt ; JAYNA KOTHARI 3;. 352:.elk.2§:ANt;:.§:<Ua«2A}é""F£3'R.,VL

ct:/R2,sM'I'.N;LOUPER AKBA;?_'_GA 1:*c:1_1§e':'«r1.  ,;a 

ma ORDER PASSED  T'-':i;»:;E '~1..%wR1T PETITION
NCM10523/2007 DATED 15/4;2a03."-- "  

This Writ Appeal Aisvriomirxgé up"  Hearing

can this day, SABIjiAHIT§:J.,§ d§#iiveréii.j_t{1¢__'f{5Howing.

  JuB&MENT
'}v'Vi'z;i'&   ihe petitioner in

W.P.No:}rIO523'f f2{3t§.?'}« B€§g.. :2r;ggIievea by the order dated

15.4.20

O8Rwl§£3z’vei:2: thE’–&i3£’fi€d Single Judge of this court has

_ helpi’5t’:;haf’£h§ s<§c§é'11d….rfi:s.pond8z1t in the Writ pefition shaft he

a}jo%*§¢d..(}1':i$ shops on M.G.f2oad on market rate of

allotted recently and has furtifier ordemd

V V _ t}:1at f}3e consideration of the determination of the

" #pp.1iQafi6fi far damages ssconci mspondent shall make a

deposit {:3 the satisfaction of the authozity" which is

ta éetermine the claim which is bmught by the

K,» .

for Qccnpatiofl ané 1:9 dose their shops onflie V’ »

paper pubiication was aiso given:-.A A”Ré31ii0€ :}’3*:fffi1€!

newspaper published f1′(};iI1 C%1a jfiiizapat.;: a V(‘}I1- ‘

29.11.2006. Aimost all the vér;a.:.&4§;~_fs m§{1;ovea the
shops and bunk shghg andv’AAsiVfift€d their
business to Karabala :%’s:’=ix? unauthorisréd
bmizk shag o1§!1}.x:i{$’:fiid though they
shifted thtftii’ aiso centinued to da
¥::”usi3:1es:-1:». nefification, pzfafic
annouéxcenaemi itams. W.P.N0.1665′:’S;’2O6
was filed’ ” Laf Charmapatna Tahik ‘Sa11x1a

Vypajfiéfithara praying to quash the notification

and tender–cum~auciin notification datmi

sfiught for an intexim order not to intsrferc

Wit}}«.}1h€if ~h_§ij€;ii1ess and permit them to continue: {hem in

z’s$;){:§::tive business place. This caurt tieclined to grant

the said writ petition. In the meanwhiie puiaiic W€§€

and demanding to aim? thff roacis frem feetpath

vendors anti bunk shop owners and more parti<:u}ar1y MG

\./Q