Sri K Maridev vs The Commissioner City Municipality ... on 9 August, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Maridev vs The Commissioner City Municipality ... on 9 August, 2010

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 

DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF AUGUST, 2010

BEFORE

THE H'ON'BL-E MR. }USTICE HN. NA{3AIvIOIIAN     

WRIT PETITION No.14175/g00$:'{L§----I§i£SiO.'v_--.r -. 2 "  A O

BETWEEN 1

1. SriK.MARIDEV
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA V ;
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS    
PRESIDENT     
HARIHARA CITY'».MEFf}}_I'CEPA§..IfY  ii;

HAR1_HAR,;' "I   
DAVANAC}ER,E D1STRI.. 

2. Sri VISHWANATHVBHUTEE = . 

S/O VITTAI. SADHUTE 

 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

 C'OIINCI'I.OR  .. " """ "

VHARIHARA CITYMUNICIPALITY

HARIIIARI, ODAYV ANAIGERE DISTRICT.

 Sn HAB'II3UI,LA
" ~ 310 LATE BABUSAB
 ' AGEDABOUT 46 YEARS
 COD"N.C.1i:_.OR

IIIARIHARA CITY MUNICIPALITY

 ff HARJHAR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

'pf

ﬂ



[Q

4. Sri GALANANA DALABANIAN

S/O PARLZSHURAMASA

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

COUNCILOR =

HARIHARA CITY MUNECIPALITY V
I-IARIHAR. DAVANAGERE DI'STRlC'i". 

(BY Miss.AMRUTHA SINDHU, ADV.V, 
Sri P.H.\/'lRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV.)  A

AND:

CITY MUNICKPALITY 
HARIHARA,  1. ' .
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT; -

DEPUTY cQMM1ss1Q§§ER~
DAVANAGEREV DIS"?-RIC.5F'.  
DAVANAGERE.»  - A '

Sn. M.C..,£§;;:ANJUNAm
s/0 s.CmNDR APPA '

1- AGED' ABQUT 3-5 YEARAASD '

 DR;<oMoc:«11 Cf)AL.ONY_

 I " " ~  H. S1QN.,A HARMARA
 DAVA_NAC}ERE DISTRICT.

!"---...

J'-1

J

 bi71D7:x1;ITI\'C51_\§'Ei?S«. "  A A



4. Sri HANK} :\/[ANTHA GOWDA
S/O BBASAVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O AMARAVATHI VELLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

(By Srnt K.s.ANASuYA DEV} EOR N'YA.._"YAM1T.RA  " *
ADVOCATES FOR R-I   %  "
Sri N.E.\/TSHWANATH, AGA FOR R:-2, 
Sri VB.SIDDARAMAIAHQADV..=FOR._R--3"-,_
Sri E_S.1ND1'RESH, ADV., FORR'--_4 )1';  A 

THIS WRIT PETIT_I(:sN IS FILED UN'D_ER_ ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE'-.C€)1$$S'F.ITU"FIQN__.--QF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO QUASI¢I"=THE--. ANNEXv1}:11E4--HiV* TO H6 WORK
ORDERS DT.()4,__IT1.2308;«HQVLD_ING*T'HE SAME ARE ILLEGAL,
ARBITRAR'rf  AND};1INQ"v1OLAT1ON'"" OF STATUTORY
PROVISIONS:_OF' MtlNTc'iRTA'm*21ES-ACT AND KTPP ACT
1999 AND ETC-.. 4.    

THIS' _ wR:T""~vPE;TzT'.:O1K;_ COMTNG ON FOR HEARING
T_H_:S DAY,,}.:I'HE COUk'ET.i?§ASSJﬁ_"£D THE FOLLOWING;

ORDER

In This writ pbj'£iA['i()IE the petitioner prayed for a writ in the ~7.i'n-;m._;re2 Of ceriinrari to quash the work Orders dated 04.11.2008 as O *f() 11l_'1 (i at'.A_r1_r1cxure Hi to H6. f"\ /A

3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused" the entire'-, 'S writ papers.

4. Miss. Amrutha Sindhu, {earned couftsel gfor.their»petitione1':y..A firstly contends that there is no sanctionironj the i\21unir;ip:;tIV_Cicit1nci1V to execute the works as required 3ié.1':>((\ \'&'0fl/,%Vti3the Kztrnataka Municipalities Act, and on this ground the impugned work orde1j.:ir'§5~..}i:;r;;::'g{¢,, I decline to accept this conten.tion'aot{ihe petitioner. it is not in dispL;Vte_t.he{"vtiie taken up under the Scheme. The issued separate guideiines in the matter of exectttionvvoii' the Scheme in question as pert.Anne:tt.;treii R-1 d2itev:i.ﬂi6.(&)7.200}.. These guidelines as per Amiexaoire-.R--; amended from time to time. A reading of these guideiinesiet 'Ar1"nexur7ei RI and the subsequent amendment iirnanifestly iiih:ii<e.s it clear that it is the respondent No. 2 M Deputy .g.Ci<')ei13it1issii<t)-:1.ei* who is the sanctioning authority of the works in A' gU€5iil'i()iI't, under whose supervision works are to be executed and he P-.....

JV /

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court