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

Sri. Arun Kumar Chinnappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 27 September, 2016

Author: S.Abdul Nazeer

Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

           WRIT PETITION No.28381/2013
                        AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.31788-89/2013 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. ARUN KUMAR CHINNAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

2.     SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR CHINNAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

3.     SMT. GRACE VINODHINI @
       AMLU UDAYANA
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

       1, 2 AND 3 ARE THE CHILDREN OF
       LATE P.S. CHINNAPPA
       PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
       R/AT NO.94, 2ND MAIN
       PAUL CHINNAPPA LAYOUT,
       BIKASIPURA,
       SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
       BANGALORE-01                ...PETITIONERS.

             (BY SRI K.SHIVAJI RAO, ADV.)
                              2


AND:

1.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
       BANGALORE-560 009.

2.     RICHADRS S.J.,
       S/O R.H. JAYANATHAN
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
       R/AT NO.23, 5TH CROSS,
       BOB COLONY,
       J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
       BANGALORE-78                 ...RESPONDENTS.

        (BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R-1)

                          *******

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE
SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE, DATED 19.03.12,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

    THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING: -

                       ORDER

These writ petitions are filed for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the Appeal No.R.A.(S).282/2011-12.

3

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of these writ petitions, the appeal has been disposed of by the 1st respondent and that the petitioners have already filed the revision petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent.

3. In view of the same, these writ petitions have become infructuous. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE NG*