Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Pradeep S/O Ishwarappa Hanagal vs Secretary, Gram Panchayath Bagyanagar on 24 October, 2013

Author: L.Narayana Swamy

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 24TH OF OCTOBER, 2013

                            BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

       WRIT PETITION NO.65809 OF 2009 (LB-RES)

Between:

Pradeep
S/o Ishwarappa Hanagal
Age 49 years
R/o Bagyanagar
Taluk: Koppal
District: Koppal
                                                     ...Petitioner
(by Shri J.S. Shetty, Advocate)

And:

1. Secretary
   Grama Panchayat Bagyanagar
   Bhagyanagar
   Taluk: Koppal
   District: Koppal

2. President
   Grama Panchayat Bagyanagar
   Bhagyanagar
   Taluk: Koppal
   District: Koppal
                                                  ...Respondents

(by Shri Sadiq N. Goodwala & Sri A.B. Patil, Advocates for R1
 Notice to R2 served)
                                2




      This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution   of   India    praying   to   quash  the  notice
No.Gra.Pan.Bha/09-10, dated 13.10.2009 issued by the
respondents the copy of which has been produced at Annexure-
A; and etc.

     This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, in 'B'
group, this day, the Court made the following:

                           ORDER

Notice, dated 13th October 2009, issued by the office of the Grama Panchayat, Bhagyanagar, whereunder the petitioner was directed to shift the brandy shop within 24 hours, has been challenged in this petition. The ground of challenge is on incompetence.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner himself has made representation to the Grama Panchayat for permission to shift the said shop which was considered by the respondents and the petitioner was permitted to shift the shop. Hence, he shifted it from Survey No. 691/B in Shop No.11/1 to a different place and is carrying on his business in the new place.

3

3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was permitted to shift the shop based on his own representation, nothing survives for consideration in this petition and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.

SD/-

JUDGE lnn