Gangadhara N.R. vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gangadhara N.R. vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2013

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013

                             BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

        WRIT PETITION NO.23307 OF 2013 (LB-RES)

Between:

Gangadhara N.R.
S/o late Rudrappa N
Aged about 28 years
Panchayath Development Officer
Gram Panchayath
Nagaramgere
Challakere Taluk
Chitradurga District - 577 543
                                                ...Petitioner
(by Shri Ravi H.K, Advocate)

And:

  1. The State of Karnataka
     Represented by its Secretary
     Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
     Development Authorities
     M.S. Building
     Bangalore - 1

  2. The Director
     Office of the Director of
     Town Planning
     M S Building
     Bangalore - 1

  3. The Deputy Commissioner
                                  2




      Chitradurga District
      Chitradurga - 577 005

   4. The Assistant Director of Town Planning
      Office of the Assistant Director of Town Planning
      Chitradurga - 577 005

   5. The Chief Officer
      Town Municipal Council (TMC)
      And Planning Authority
      Challakere
      Chitradurga District - 577 005

   6. The Secretary
      Nagaramgere Gram Panchayath
      Challakere Taluk
      Chitradurga District - 577 005
                                                     ...Respondents
(by Shri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
communication dt.1.2.2003 vide Annexure-A issued by R5 by
issuing a writ fo certiorari as illegal; and etc.

      This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court, made the following:

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the similar situation a writ petition was filed before this Court in No.7549 of 2003 and the same was disposed of on 11th March 2013. While disposing of the said petition, liberty was reserved to the petitioner therein to make appropriate petition. The 3 petitioner in this petition made representation dated 20th April 2013 addressed to the Chief Officer, Taluk Municipal Corporation, Challakere and the same has not been disposed of so far.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this petition could be disposed of by granting some more time to dispose of the representation given by the petitioner.

3. Under these circumstances, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the fifth respondent to consider the representation given by the petitioner and to pass appropriate order on the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within a period of six weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE lnn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court