{"id":93381,"date":"2010-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-07T08:17:56","modified_gmt":"2016-12-07T02:47:56","slug":"sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur Gowda<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 1:1?\" DAY OF 3ANUARY, 2O1,O.jfQ_J~~,_VV\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE M,AN3'ULA,1'CHELDJRTV    V\n\n& :1 '.\n\nTHE HON'E5LE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEN:;GPOPA\u00bbL,A'~G'O\\N\":3;A,.'*1r_j\n\nWRIT APPEAL N0.1'\u00e9_8'4\/z2O(j9v-(VLBeRE.S3A\u00a5,_\"~-.. \nBETWEEN: > . M A\n\n1. SR1 A.S.PARAMESHwARAIAN,;.f ;   \nAGED ABOUT 70 YEARS; _  1 - \" \n\n2. SRI A.S.MA,HA'DE'\\\/AI:AHg \nAGED AE3_OUT e<;_8__ _\\f'EARS.'- \n\n3. SRI  ~  V\nAG ED APs'OI.JT_ S4i"fYEARS;\n\nALL ARES\/O.OP LATE Av;_N';~S,R.\u00a7KANTAIAH,\n\nRESIDENTS OF FORT.r\\\u00abiAI'N_ ROAD,\n\nHOLENARAS'I~PU'RA_}_  * *\n\nHASSAN PDISTPQICT ~ 573211. :APPELLANTS\n\n V:(BY,,VSR.::"'i\u00a3,..'LtV,NARASIMHAN, ADV.)\n\n'A.NSD'._=f  V'\n\n1. STATE' O-ERARNATA KA\n\n ._REP: BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,\n _ D..EPARTT~---TENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT\n- _ \u00bb_*A.ND""MINICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,\n 1. :V1_.S-.B'UILD1NGS,DR.B.RAMBEDKAR VEEDHI,\n  BANGALORE -- O1.\n\n\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION\nv.v.TOwERS,9TH FLOOR,\n\nDR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,\n\nBANGALORE - 01.\n\n3. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL\nHOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT,\n\nREP.BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. :RESPONDi'E--NSjCrS \n\n(BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGAEORR1_8iVIR'2I?_';v.  _ V\nM\/s. KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVS. FOR R3),     \n\nTHIS WRIT APPEAL IS FII;ED--..U\/ST\u00bb'..'4.'A"'O'FTHE"-,\nKARNATAKA HIGH COURT -ACT-._PRAYING.TO_ S~ET-"ASIDE \u00bb '\n\nTHE ORDER PASSED IN wRI"I""E4P\u00bbPETITIO'R.__N'O..'-16822\/2005\nDTD:19\/O3\/2009.    \n\nTHIS APPEAL COivi.IN--r3  PRELIMINARY\n\nHEARING THIS DAY, VENUGVOPALA G\u00abOw'DIA'_'.3., DELIVERED\nTHE FOLLOWINC3:~_  " . 1 I \n\n \nCI1-a|Ie.nge-  is to the Order passed by the\n\niearned Sin"gie"J.:Ici--.ge'*v_diisfnissing the writ petition. The\n\n in A.theIwrit""p'etitiOn was to the notification dated\n\n by the 15' respondent, laying down the<\/pre>\n
g.L:’iI_Ielines”vI\u00a74;{Viti5I regard to the disposai of the properties<\/p>\n
Igheid b~y_t:.he Eocai bodies and aiso to a Communication of<\/p>\n
A “:I:”I;hVeII2″fd respondent dated 31.0?.20(34.<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
\/Q<\/p>\n
2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case as stated by
\nthe appellants is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Appellants are the members of a Hindu undiyided<\/p>\n
family. 15″ appellant is the kartha. Appellants..l,are’__”4fjh,e’<\/p>\n
owners of properties bearing Municipal Katha:’iioVs.13:2\u00a7_9 <\/p>\n
3300 situated by the side of i-ia:s;san::A’–‘3Mys’ior–e_.:<\/p>\n
i-iolenarasipiira. Appellants have estalb’iiished_’.i”.I.:.their’said <\/p>\n
property a petrol bunk  name_”‘an-d xlstylle of
\n“A.S.Parameshwaraiah Tend  Towards the
\neastern end of the petrol  to Hassan –\n<\/p>\n
Mysore Road,;*’t’i’i’e,r:\u00e9 isipa  to the Town<\/p>\n
Municipal CouVnc\u00a7wi..”‘~-,a\u00a7&pp’evl\u00ablan–ts’sought grant of the said site.
\nBy a con’irfnunvica’tio’n,  23.08.1985, 3″‘ respondent<\/p>\n
intirjn\ufb01atyed the”~a_p:pe||ants that the property has been<\/p>\n
 to  at an upset price of Rs.16\/– per Sq.mtr.<\/p>\n
l”Appeil1a”ntsjiotitained katha of the said property vide an<\/p>\n
 end’o’rse:.rhe’u1’t dated 188.198 and paid the tax. on<\/p>\n
,::1A8.;Q7.1V9E.39, Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District had in<\/p>\n
  ‘relation to grant of the said property, instructed the 3″‘<\/p>\n
 ‘respondent to verify the proposal and fix the market price<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
\/,’ .\n<\/p>\n
_V chauenged.\n<\/p>\n
at Rs.47.64ps. per Sq.mtr, pursuant to which, a decision
\nwas taken in the meeting of the 3″ respondent on<\/p>\n
28.12.1989, fixing the price at Rs.-48\/~ per Sq.mtr.”~.On<\/p>\n
12.06.2003, 13′ respondent issued a Governm..ent_,\u00bbV.0’rti;e:r”<\/p>\n
dated 02.06.2003 specifying the persons_tolj”‘wh’o:rni’the’~00<\/p>\n
lands belonging to a Munici,pality:;.;o\u00bbrllother <\/p>\n
could be granted. Contending th\u00e9atllthe notiifiycatiois,”islw\ufb02g<\/p>\n
arbitrary and even otherwise d”id:”i1ot relatVe”*to-3 the earlier
\ntransactions, the same:’was_\u00ab”gti_estion’e~d,. Since” the 3″‘
\nrespondent had addressed,’elf”|:ette–r..:v’t~o.I’V’~tlfie appellants,<\/p>\n
stating that, t,he”ggrant::.,mad–e: in t’h–eir._._fafvour is cancelled<\/p>\n
and also tookn,ste’ps’*to”‘d_ispose’ of the property by public<\/p>\n
auction   25.05.2005, the same were<\/p>\n
‘A    3″‘–..respondent filed statement of objections. It<\/p>\n
conthevnidved”_~that,,'”the’writ petitioners have not approached<\/p>\n
V . the lcourtiwith clean hands and the statements made in the<\/p>\n
.:writ._.petiVt’ion are distortion of facts, misleading & incorrect<\/p>\n
a”nd”‘such a course of action has been adopted with<\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
4-:\n<\/p>\n
malafide intentions and oblique motives. Appellants had<\/p>\n
made an application for grant of the plot No.27,7V\u20acl…_4:”‘Qn<\/p>\n
08.06.1983, the issue came up before <\/p>\n
Committee which passed a resolution to grant\u00bbth:e.,p’ropeArt’g{u  <\/p>\n
to the appellants. On the date ofrpassinfg.’<\/p>\n
the 15* appellant happened,.to,__. beA”i:.h_e”
\nCouncilor and also the Chairma’ni”o_i’thVe FVi’nanVc’eV’:Corhmittee
\nof the 3″‘ respondent.   over by
\nthe 1″ appellant.”The not had any<\/p>\n
Standing Comrni4ttfpe’Vas:ion  was stated that,<\/p>\n
the appellants “‘i,<e'pt silent about the<\/p>\n
resolution  of the Finance Committee,<\/p>\n
which waschaired'  other than the 15' appellant,<\/p>\n
  virtueV"o.f,:his position as the Chairman of the<\/p>\n
 Firia.nce_v"'CQm\u00a7\u00e9:..ittee, has wielded influence on the other<\/p>\n
rriernb_ers',\u00abi'i'_n__geti:ing the resolution passed. The resolution<\/p>\n
 _ is op'posedto""'the principle "that no person can be a judge<\/p>\n
C it  his__ own cause". In view of the suppression of material<\/p>\n
withholding of material information and the<\/p>\n
C documents, the petitioners are guilty of "suppressio veri<\/p>\n
l\/.\n<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
and suggestio falsi”. On the very same day, Municipal<\/p>\n
Council passed a resolution i.e., after the Fiiiahce<\/p>\n
Committee passed its resolution, approving <\/p>\n
the property to the appellants. The market__v:a~l..ue::_o’fthe'”T<\/p>\n
land was fixed at Rs.16\/\u00ab~ per   <\/p>\n
23.08.1985, appellants were caliedj’vupony\ufb02ltoVi” tender? V<\/p>\n
Rs.7,0-40\/\u00ab~ being the cost of the””s:a”id property’, :.iV-Le.,2\u00a7suVbject
\nto approval \/ sanctionVbyV._the’V\u00e9o’ve.r_n.m’e.nt. lihelfamount
\nwas tendered on   by a letter
\ndated 12.04.1\u20ac\u00a788:,\u00ab..forwardedrtherxr:e’s’ow!ut.ioh to the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner a_r\ufb01:i_,. also .su’b’.mi’tt–e.d that’, on the basis of the<\/p>\n
informaition-_provioe:d:’by'”th:e”=office of the Sub-Registrar as<\/p>\n
regards to ‘the prevaliliyngrnarket value of the property in<\/p>\n
 the Iyocallity, the”‘m_arket:price of the property works out to<\/p>\n
 Sq.mtr and the total value of the<\/p>\n
piop’e_rty”‘wov_u_ldV~l;work out to Rs.19,130\/\u00ab-. Since the value<\/p>\n
V V _ of th\u00e9trahsaction exceeded Rs.10,000\/–, the concurrence\/<\/p>\n
a::ppro.valV”‘of the Government being necessary, requested<\/p>\n
Eieputy Commissioner that the proposal be<\/p>\n
T –:’.,:”r<~;-commended to the Government for its approval. A<\/p>\n
R<\/p>\n
\/.'._.\n<\/p>\n
notice dated 06.01.1989, was published in the newspaper<\/p>\n
on 18.01.1989, bringing to the knowledge of the _G~e_nel_ralV<\/p>\n
Public: regarding the resolution passed <\/p>\n
property to the appellants. Objecti.o,ns__wer_e”ra’i*s.e’d ”<\/p>\n
general public for the grant of propV’e4rty,;_”contenldlng <\/p>\n
the property is sold by publ’iVc’*-a_uction,’V:it  at
\nmuch higher value. In view   the
\nmembers of the  gcommissioner
\nconducted a spot in~s’pe.c;tio’r1–‘property on
\n24.053989. .    opposed the
\n directed the 3″‘
\nrespond’-ent._toA on the existing market value<\/p>\n
of the prop’e.rty.v The”Tgow:n”_.\u00bb.M’unicipaI Council in its meeting<\/p>\n
 heldon”28.12.1’989Vdiseussed the issue and by taking into<\/p>\n
 ooI1s_iVlder:at’i.on\ufb01uthe previous resolution dated 08.06.1983<\/p>\n
and”-l’._allso’Tlshe’V~l..;’d’i”rection of the Deputy Commissioner,<\/p>\n
 _ resolved .-._t:hat””‘the upset price for the property be fixed at<\/p>\n
   Sgmtr and to submit the same for approval of<\/p>\n
Government. The resolution was forwarded along<\/p>\n
99 ..y:”vvi’tlh a letter dated 16.01.1990 requesting the Deputy<\/p>\n
R<\/p>\n
K’).\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner to recommend to the Government to grant<\/p>\n
approval for ailotment of the property to the appe|la”n,ts.<\/p>\n
The President of Hassan District Congress (I) 3<\/p>\n
letter dated 05.11.1990 objected to the ailotmentiivV’i”heV.v.,’ K<\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner forwardedfthe’\u00abproposaildl\u00abt_o,_”t:hel.’.<\/p>\n
Director of Municipal Administration ‘:fo_rl:a.p.proval~_,A who <\/p>\n
examining the entire matter,'”–iii’c:o–nve3rVed-
\nCommissioner that, the:”.a.rea,~io’f’  vast
\nand a corner plot, it shouildfbgeii b_i{.:’piAJ.i2,|”i’ci__auction only.
\nIt was also info.rin,ed_  the proposed
\ngrant of  been rejected and
\nthe fllehis thus rejected the<\/p>\n
proposal in’*–t_oto_aVi’:d.”‘c,lo\u00bbse’dii the file. The appellants were<\/p>\n
 informed by the 3f? respondent on 08\/09.09.1992 that the<\/p>\n
 pdropojsal_visAent:”t.o_ the Government seeking its approvai to<\/p>\n
a’iiOt”l’.__the’~ has been rejected. The appellants<\/p>\n
V _ subm”i’tted:arepresentation to the Minister seeking grant of<\/p>\n
S.:aid.ri.;:}roperty and their representation was forwarded to<\/p>\n
i_j__th’eV”2′”d respondent, who after examining the same,<\/p>\n
C –\u00ab’..:V’o’utright|y rejected the request. In the meantime, the<\/p>\n
k<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants had managed to get the katha of the property
\nin their name, for which the 2″” respondent took serious
\nobjection and directed in terms of a communication dated<\/p>\n
05.11.1992, to take suitable action against those ‘who<\/p>\n
were responsible for making out the katha of the <\/p>\n
in the name of the appeilants. When the <\/p>\n
thus, the Deputy Commissioner,,..,,by a_-“‘i’e’tte’r.2″‘da_’t.eda._<\/p>\n
11.01.1995 directed the 3″‘ i-espondentrto.:re’su,i>ntii’t t’h4;\u00a7’i.,,fl.|’e1.i.:<\/p>\n
pertaining to the allotment ofp_ro.p”erty’toV’th.e  in
\npursuance of which, the filey___yJ’a\u00bbs__ ‘resuiim-i\u00abtted. _5Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner forwardedvrlie, i’–ile{_to   respondent on<\/p>\n
17.08.1995. ‘and\u00b0~i:’iie”i2f”~.,:re*sp’oiident having re–examined<\/p>\n
the matter’,__onceV”agai’n\u00bb* rieje\u00e9cted the proposal and it was<\/p>\n
 aEso,,.<._1t')served t'r:–_1.l:, the proposed grant is in violation of<\/p>\n
 $eCt,i\ufb01oi*.s_i22(2)'-,, :00 & 112 of the Karnataka Municipalities<\/p>\n
Act\ufb02gintiwe said proceedings, 2"" respondent<\/p>\n
V . procleede-clltollpass an order dated 29.07.2002, suspending<\/p>\n
H9""Au":..tiiiittti.r..4imrriediate effect, the registration of the katha and<\/p>\n
.9\u00abj__the"a'llotment of the property and further, restrained the<\/p>\n
9  'a'ppei|ants from putting up any construction or carrying out<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
\/,.\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
any activities in the property. 3″‘ respondent was directed<\/p>\n
to take action in that regard. Appellants having presjsari’\u00abze’dVA<\/p>\n
the Deputy Commissioner, who by a communtcjaitioni”d\u00a7ated”-‘-2A *<\/p>\n
22.10.2002 directed the 3″ respondentyto reso’vi\u00a7”n?iiv’t t.he:fi_le’2-,_V “‘<\/p>\n
and hence the file was forwarded-‘orr_’_’ <\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner, forwar_d:e.d’ the  “;2″‘;”A
\nrespondent with his recommenAd.at:i’on ‘tongra’n’tl–thgeVAp\u00a7roperty
\nin favour of the appei\u00e9llant-s_vf{-.a:t.::u.pgset price of
\nRs.3,25,875\/-. tlovi_reve:’;”‘the  Vf’\u00e9om.missioner by
\nmaking a    of the 2″”\n<\/p>\n
responde_n__t_,  under a letter
\ndated  -‘or Government notification<\/p>\n
dated 12.tS’;’–.2_003, Vth.ere i~s.:””rjreo4 provision to grant the land to<\/p>\n
 private’ ‘parties andas the 2″ respondent has rejected the<\/p>\n
 pArotp.osal_; theproperty be disposed of as per the directions<\/p>\n
ilss_u\u00e9\u00a7.d%.b’y:\u00b0thg tjovernment. The appellants were notified<\/p>\n
V . on  about the rejection of the proposal by the<\/p>\n
c\ufb01ox\/.e..r_nment. 15″ respondent by its order dated 02.06.2003<\/p>\n
.’yi’~_.sti..pLi’iated the norms that are required to be followed in the<\/p>\n
0 matter of disposal of the lands belonging to the Local<\/p>\n
\\’~1.\n<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
.\/e’<\/p>\n
Bodies. In pursuance of the said Government Order,___ the<\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner was requested to initiate..:furt–he-r<\/p>\n
action for the saie of the property. In the <\/p>\n
Project Director, Hassan District,_,\u00bbu.nder fa”‘I’\u00e9t\u00a3erV””da_tedi-._<\/p>\n
05.11.2004 directed the 3″‘ respondentto’se\u00a5i~.t_he:–‘.propiertyi_1.<\/p>\n
through public auction in ‘ac’co,rdanc’e, with.’ti’ie’~~no-rms ‘~ 0’<\/p>\n
stipulated in the Government:,O.rde.r.’=TAhe.happegliants were
\ncailed upon under a  to vacate the
\nproperty and handoverithe.*s.arn:e._ii\\,rith.inV.%.ivveek, for being
\nsold in pub|:_i_c–i  again under a
\nletter  3″‘ respondent to
\ntake steps. within 20 days, in<\/p>\n
pUFSUanCeVV”Quf”‘J\\(hViCh;’V’Vt|’I’\u20ac:!”‘3Fd respondent pubiished notice<\/p>\n
 both._\u00a7ntta.e not’i’c’e_.Vt):oarc:J and newspapers, proposing to seil<\/p>\n
 ..pVrops:eVArty.,VAiri~\u00abpublic auction on 30.06.2005.<\/p>\n
 Single Judge, considering the record<\/p>\n
–V andthe”‘ri\u00e9vai’fcontentions, heid that, the petitioners having<\/p>\n
 in a misadventure of “suggestio faisi and<\/p>\n
 siuppressio veri,” must suffer the consequence. Further,<\/p>\n
‘ii<\/p>\n
\/,.\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
having regard to the provisions contained in Section 72 of<\/p>\n
the Act and Ruie 39 of the Karnataka Municipaiitties<\/p>\n
(Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and <\/p>\n
Provisions) Rules, 1966 and the decision   <\/p>\n
Mohan.P Sonu Vs. State of Karnat:akag:8{‘Qt’hger’s5<\/p>\n
K.L.3 245) and the fact that the_”1~5t pe.titi;\u00a7ii\u00e9’r has<\/p>\n
committed fraud on power an’dV:_V’mi_sused.the oi\ufb01ficte for
\ngaining the property,’idismissnedyvi’thVe’V,.\u00bbvVt’v1.rit miion with
\ncosts. Noticing that, the  made use of
\nfor more thar;_i”‘tiyo’V  i}iii’tho’ut…..authority of iaw,<\/p>\n
direction was i.ssued”‘*to4_”‘t’f3e\u00ab’E277″ res’pondent to hoid an<\/p>\n
enquirytand the to recover the damages.<\/p>\n
   vi(\u00a7*V.AN_ara’simhan, iearned advocate<\/p>\n
 i-agppearinsggforgpthe ‘appeiiants, contended that:<\/p>\n
“-t’.,’A(.a)’i:””‘_.{he;”i’etter of the Deputy Commissioner for
\n_ ‘ revision of the price concerning the property in
\n question and the decision taken by the 3′”<\/p>\n
respondent to fix the rate at Rs.48\/– per
\nSc;.mtr, has not been appreciated by the
\niearned Singie Judge.\n<\/p>\n
(D)<\/p>\n
(C)<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
The action to grant the site having bee_nv.ctai\u00a7env
\nti’ii.e_”\n<\/p>\n
long ago and having been acted ;_<\/p>\n
question of applying the
\nnotification as at Annexurre+.NA w’ou|.d””n0’t Vari’_se.’V..A
\nIt was submitted that’\u00bb,._ trier..japp\u00bbe|iants\u00b0i.}iiegre1:_:<\/p>\n
made to act in a p,articuia’ro_w’ay onsV.the ipremgisei<\/p>\n
of certain situation ast-hen existed _”a-ndxiitiicouid
\nnot have been takegn—–ai{va.y”t.o their p.r.ej.udice by
\nap piicatio n of the’ said; not\ufb01igcaitiiogn.<\/p>\n
The..a;ppp’e||an;’ts  pay the market
\npr-ic’e,_ fhe’;’.imp:u_giii.ed ‘-E3CfI0ri_ on the part of 2″” &<\/p>\n
3’-*_  nd   Stified.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘The  Single Judge that the<\/p>\n
‘first gapVpei”Ia.n’th’_as acted illegally or in bad faith<\/p>\n
‘ ”  is er-ro_ne’ous; in View of the subsequent events,<\/p>\n
  which ha\\z’e”not been considered in the proper<\/p>\n
‘V  V A ‘ p_ersp~ective.\n<\/p>\n
AV(e);’<\/p>\n
” . __A7~not just and legai.\n<\/p>\n
 direction issued and the cost imposed is<\/p>\n
Hence, interference in the<\/p>\n
matter is calied for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(e)<\/p>\n
7.1′<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
of the property belonging to the Local
\nAuthority and even otherwise, when the matter
\nwas published, there were objections from the<\/p>\n
public, which were considered by the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner and decision was takenAMtoV:’re..jjegftvv.,<\/p>\n
the proposal, which was communicated’,:’t’o\u00a7’jthe’v—-.T’g
\nappellants, which they did
\nthe other hand, they su:rrep:titiot,i.sly’m:oved_;the_
\nauthorities by supres’sio:n_lzxoflll” .facts\u00ab. V’<\/p>\n
attempted to gain”th’e~._propevrty i.ll_e’_c,.,aliy_’.’\u00ab-V… <\/p>\n
The writ cou’fr’t._not_1″V’b’ei’r’s~t_j,.app,roache’d”within a
\nreasonable time’ of,.7reje_c’tion_’and also with
\ncl ean ha nd 5, A d” l”se,rj’titl’e.d;t_h ed ‘.rei\ufb01\u00bbedy.<\/p>\n
 the pleadings of the parties,
\nthe records”‘p_4rodVuc’e_d, recorded by the learned<\/p>\n
Singleilvjudge  rival contentions urged for<\/p>\n
‘=__cons..ideration,T*~.the following points arise for our
\nco~nsi-die ratio_n.; ‘ ‘ ‘ it<\/p>\n
i.’ “Vi\/h’e.ther there is suppression of material<\/p>\n
Vinformation and the records by the writ<\/p>\n
petitioners \/ appellants?\n<\/p>\n
\u00a5\/<\/p>\n
\/9<\/p>\n
“\u00a36<\/p>\n
ii. Whether there is misuse of power on the <\/p>\n
part of the 1″ appellant, while he was <\/p>\n
Municipal Councilor and Chairman Of:'”fl’?’e:VV’.-__’q-‘V: <\/p>\n
Finance Committee of Holenarasipura”~\u00abT[ov\u00a2ii~.. ll<\/p>\n
Municipal Council, in __the._   <\/p>\n
obtaining the grant of the:iprope.rty?’as..”  <\/p>\n
iii. Whether the grant of_p’;roperty?.
\nMunicipal Council, Holenarasipura-  C favour
\nof the appellan’ts.._is in”lconfoi’mity with la why? i<\/p>\n
iv. Whetherin theietfaicts  ci’rc,urnStances of
\nthe case,Vgljany::__interleren(:ej’–with the order
\npassedploy5:72theslearnegd-\u00abC_’Single Judge is<\/p>\n
_called pt I’  ”\n<\/p>\n
Re.Poin\u00a3ivs.igg;g;i:”7Tj’-~._:’ C<\/p>\n
‘as:\n<\/p>\n
 Iundispultedlhy, .1 ‘appellant was the Councilor in<\/p>\n
‘the “‘3″B 3\u00bb–.responden\u00e9t%-~ Municipality. He was also the<\/p>\n
the:_l.~Finance Standing Committee when the<\/p>\n
first \u00bb..r_esolutio\u00a7’i.TlVto grant the property in favour of “AS.<\/p>\n
7-‘~___VParameshwaraiah and Brothers” was passed on<\/p>\n
  giOV’8;O.6:1983. It is in pursuance of the said resolution, the<\/p>\n
.V%”‘–.i:e’M_urhicipai Council approved the aforesaid resolution,<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
\/1<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
subject to the concurrence \/ approval of the Government<\/p>\n
and fixed the market price at Rs.16\/– per squarefmete’i”-.,_4<\/p>\n
When the proposal of grant was published <\/p>\n
newspaper on 18.01.1989, there were.o,bjecti’oVn’s:.–frorn’_the’-_ it<\/p>\n
public to the grant of the property  <\/p>\n
property would fetch much higlhVe’i=..yalule
\nby the Municipal Council,’ Depu,tyui(:o_mi:nissio’ner,co.hducted
\nthe spot inspection on   was drawn
\nand the Municipa_l:’*C_ounci’l’ isuhlbmit a report
\non the existingrv o:’4′:,:t_t):e.,V,.Vpro’perty,ouiitesolution passed
\nby the ,,l’?lI.J.ni’c’iVp:a’i’.:wa’s:’forwarded to the Deputy
\nforwarded the same to the<\/p>\n
Director of”‘f\\\/fulniycilpai’hidmihirristration for approval. The said<\/p>\n
 authoifiihty*consid’er.ing the nature of property, rejected the<\/p>\n
 p’ro’p.ovsa|_yj’aAn\ufb02d,\ufb01ggzdered to sell the property in public auction,<\/p>\n
which:deci’_siori1,”‘was communicated to the appellants.<\/p>\n
V . Though alilpthese factors were well within the knowledge of<\/p>\n
 va.ppeilants, more particularly with the 15* appellant, not<\/p>\n
 at whisper has been made in writ petition with regard<\/p>\n
T tohthe said aspects nor any records relating to the said<\/p>\n
\\:,\u00bb<\/p>\n
f.\n<\/p>\n
I8<\/p>\n
proceedings were produced along with the writ petition.<\/p>\n
Had not the 3″‘ respondent filed the state:m’efhtc:.V”~of<\/p>\n
objections and produced the records <\/p>\n
proceedings which have taken place,—the–‘_wri,l:” w’oul’id<\/p>\n
have been deprived of knowing the  woulCE2.::’h~aV\u00a7\/’e._VV<\/p>\n
got misled. A person who-.app%roaches’thle’._: under”<\/p>\n
Articles 226\/227 of thegtionstiituqthion[must comerwith frank
\nand full disclosure of”4’factst’\u00ab gny attempt to
\noverreach the_\u00a7;’o_urt   information or
\nmaterial    a bearing on the
\nQuesti0n,.ma’rwri\u00ab?3::.;Dtet\ufb01igoitlle  to be dismissed. The
\nn0n–disclosure2V”V’of-..:thei'”fa_c’ts’.’ which were well within the<\/p>\n
knowledge\u00e9eof x”the’.’._appellants, certainly amounts to<\/p>\n
suppression ofw…hfi_ate.:*Ial facts. The appellants despite<\/p>\n
‘.2ha\\r’ireg_ith.e\u00abimowledge of the proceedings and the records,<\/p>\n
“‘n_o”ti._c;ecl”\u00e9’uv\u00bbpra}f”Vhave indulged in act of suppression and<\/p>\n
hence, “learned Single Judge is justified in observing<\/p>\n
2. there is misadventure on the part of the writ<\/p>\n
_’  “p.et’itioners of “suppressio veri et suggestio falsi.”<\/p>\n
\\a<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
Re.Point No. ii :\n<\/p>\n
9. Indisputedly, first appellant was the if4.un::ipa1<\/p>\n
Councillor and also the Chairman of Finance  .<\/p>\n
the 3″ respondent as on 8.6.83i_ The~”g*ra.:n_t:'”oi’  <\/p>\n
property to the appellants was first2tai<en..up7\u00a7.n1 the Fi"n:a..nce_l'<\/p>\n
Committee meeting held on .8.6_,_83 V\\ivhi(':'n Vwas"V'{:ylia..i_red:'\u00a7 by <\/p>\n
the 13' appellant. A reso|ution4_l:"mi,as–ipassed:to grant the
\nproperty of the    to "M\/S.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.Parameshwara_iah  same day,
\nthe Municipal of.  passed the
\nresolution  property as resolved by
\nits   Igtvvlappeilant had withdrawn<\/p>\n
himself from rhea.5rece_ea.i\ufb01’g’e of the Finance Committee<\/p>\n
and  Council\u00bb  held on 8.6.83, there could have<\/p>\n
been”no:””ocea’s.\\i._on to call it a misuse of power. Being the<\/p>\n
 Finance Committee, 15″ appellant had<\/p>\n
C  parti’c.ipated-lint the deliberations and the Committee has<\/p>\n
u””~..VVVpassLed..the resolution for the benefit of the Chairman of<\/p>\n
 a.\u00e9thVe*\u00bbC.o5mmittee and his brothers. The action is nothing but<\/p>\n
  misuse of power for personal gain. 1″ appellant has made<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
t.\/_’ .\n<\/p>\n
2}<\/p>\n
his position both as a Chairman of Finance Committee and<\/p>\n
as a Councilor of Town Municipal Council, Holenai’asip’u-ra,<\/p>\n
in the matter of obtaining the grant of the   ~<\/p>\n
Re.Point i\\io.(iii):-\n<\/p>\n
11. The mandate of s.72(2′),_o\u00b0i~’._itt\ufb01e i\u00a2\u00a7c’tA.that,”*arjy._VV<\/p>\n
immovable property belongin.g””~~to a.munic,ipa|iVty”V’i’s’ to be’<\/p>\n
sold, leased or transferredA,.iti”ied,_:va”i’ut,e ofa’w’hAich’E exceeds
\nRs.2S,0OG\/– (earlier  gzionsideration, such
\nproperty couldhe.__solc’,wle’as:edsjoti’t:raVn’si’ai;Vted only with the
\nprevious  Rule 39 provides
\nthe    statutorily obligated to
\nadoptlthei’  under Rule 39, by which it<\/p>\n
can get m”a.xi’muVm possitile consideration for transfer of<\/p>\n
 property\u00ab.t’ The methodology which can be<\/p>\n
 ‘adopted:for”receiving maximum consideration would be the<\/p>\n
g5ul:)'”iiic aucti?o_n.a:’which is expected to be fair and transparent.<\/p>\n
 Public… auction not only ensures fair price and maximum<\/p>\n
A return, it also militates against any obligation of favourism<\/p>\n
 on the part of the authorities, while giving grant for<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
\/T’<\/p>\n
while disposing of the property of a municipality. There has
\nto be distinct demarcated approach by the Municip-aglity \/<\/p>\n
local body, when compared with a disposal<\/p>\n
property. When a property of an authority <\/p>\n
there should be an invitation forpa\u00abrtic,ipation\u00ab.lnlpubnlic<\/p>\n
auction to ensure transparency, Vo__b’ta_in ma_,-:AiArn*umV’:eturn,,<\/p>\n
and to be free from any bias’orfdiscrim’i\\.g_atl.on=.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the case of M_Qh:an_  SONU..\\{s._;STATE or<\/p>\n
KARNATAKA & OTHEVRESTg(19$2\u00a7.(2)u”\u00a7{Q::24S), material facts<\/p>\n
of the case were that,”a’dj~a:cen’t..,to_  appellant’s property,<\/p>\n
  belonged to a Municipal
\nCounc’ii\u00ab,VAn  made for allotment, upon<\/p>\n
whigcb, ToaWn,_:VMunicipal”‘Council, passed a resolution and<\/p>\n
 Arecom.-rnerld\u00e9ed thatthe land be granted to the appellant.<\/p>\n
 ‘Therm  was forwarded to the State<\/p>\n
‘C3o4yernrne’n-t’lVyvhich accorded sanction under S.72(2) of the<\/p>\n
 Act, to\ufb02allot the land to the appellant at the market price.<\/p>\n
V.\u20ac\\_ ys;rit petition was filed by a resident of the town<\/p>\n
 \ufb02rizluestioning the correctness of the Government order,<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
Matters relating to public revenue cannot be dealt with<\/p>\n
arbitrarily and in the secrecy of an office. \ufb01W:ttate.ver<\/p>\n
done in that regard should be done in  i;i)i_th<\/p>\n
law, which, in the instant case, requires duf\u00e9  <\/p>\n
be given to dispose of the property uh’<\/p>\n
manner.\n<\/p>\n
5. Section 72 is a furtlier safeguard. ‘ givenr . L’<\/p>\n
to the proposal of Munlicipal _ Courzciliito dispose of
\nproperty rights urider Rztlel\ufb02tlwlould attract ‘offers from
\npersons interested’   rights and these
\noffers would enableihthe’  to decide
\nwhether” fl’:’eL:Sc1ncT_ti0:1  the State…Covernment that is
\n “‘\ufb01”_\/’2l.’:s!r1.ould or should not be
\ngiven.    ieoniplementary to Section<\/p>\n
 both oper ate~ together.\n<\/p>\n
6. it     matter, we must hold that the<\/p>\n
_ learned ._:l’3ingle Judge was right in coming to the
\n co_nclusion’ttiat——tlie alienation. of the said land in favour
\n appellant without following the proper procedure<\/p>\n
it   by.-Rule 39, was bad in law. ”\n<\/p>\n
 The stend taken by 3″” respondent in its statement of<\/p>\n
(objections which is supported by the record discloses that,<\/p>\n
 the ‘town Municipal Councii has not acted in conformity<\/p>\n
“with iaw in the matter of grant of its property to the<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
the same with reference to the relevant provisions of law,<\/p>\n
has passed the order dismissing the writ petitiVoia_,:”‘nE’ven<\/p>\n
after reconsideration of the record, we are tinab’i’e3.ta..:a’ri=V\u00e9_yet_<\/p>\n
at any different findings or conclusion in~~th-e’::n’iaitter. <\/p>\n
impugned order is flawless.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, the’ appsea’ij_:i.a_cVks_T\u00a7ndverituv<\/p>\n
and shall stand rejected. Ordverefd accotrd-inigijj\/. <\/p>\n
Ksj\/~
\nsac*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1:1?” DAY OF 3ANUARY, 2O1,O.jfQ_J~~,_VV PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRSJUSTICE M,AN3’ULA,1’CHELDJRTV V & :1 ‘. THE HON’E5LE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEN:;GPOPA\u00bbL,A’~G’O\\N”:3;A,.’*1r_j WRIT APPEAL N0.1’\u00e9_8’4\/z2O(j9v-(VLBeRE.S3A\u00a5,_”~-.. BETWEEN: > . […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93381","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-07T02:47:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-07T02:47:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3646,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-07T02:47:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-07T02:47:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-07T02:47:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010"},"wordCount":3646,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010","name":"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-07T02:47:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-s-parameshwaraiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri A S Parameshwaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93381","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93381"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93381\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}