Karnataka High Court
M/S Iads And Events vs The Government Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.26792 - 26793 OF 2012 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
M/s.Iads & Events
A proprietary concern with its
Office at No.61, Chaa-Che Towers
(Gold Towers), No.50, Residency
Road, Bangalore-560 025
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.Rais Arif. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri P B Ajit for Sri B M Shyam Prasad & Assts. Advs.)
AND
1. The Government of Karnataka
The Department of Personnel &
Administration, Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-560 001
Represented by its Secretary.
2. M/s.Indrakshi Devi
W/o.Mr.R Raja Chandra
Aged Major
r/o.Tirupura Vasini
Bangalore, Palace Grounds
Ramana Maharshi Road
Bangalore. . RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Shashidhar S Karamadi, HCGP for R1)
2
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 2nd
respondent to file application in terms of the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.9.1997 and 25th January
2001 in Civil Appeal Nos.3303 & 3310/1997 for
conducting furniture fair/interior and exterior fair/interior
show between 21st September 2012 and 24th September
2012, between 1st November and 4th November 2012 and
between 14th December 2012 and 17th December 2012
venue at Tripura Vasini, Bangalore Palace Grounds,
Ramana Maharshi Road, Bangalore.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court made the
following:-
ORDER
The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for a direction to respondents to permit to conduct furniture fair/interior and exterior fair/interior show between 21st September 2012 and 24th September 2012, between 1st November and 4th November 2012 and between 14th December 2012 and 17th December 2012 venue at Tripura Vasini, Bangalore Palace Grounds, Ramana Maharshi Road, Bangalore.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the request of petitioner has not been considered by the 3 respondents so far. The period requested for fair has already been expired. Therefore, these writ petitions do not survive for consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to submit an application for subsequent fair to the appropriate Authority for consideration.
With the above observation, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm/-