Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Co.nseouen'ti'y, a Review Committee, iater known as 'Expe";ft Committee' was constituted to enquire into the «V'_'v.a: ri"ous aiiegations. Apprehending the actions of the Government, AIMO --- a trade body filed a public So aiso one Dakshina Murthy.
Similarly, one Mr. LC. Madhoswamy....fii'ed'::.a'ni'othe'r._g"' public interest litigation vvhereihn stand' Government was reiterated. V",!:is"'.;3ii thieq~f:ontein=tion'Sa.L and the facts were identica.l:'a..nd st:bstaAnt_ia'i~!iv'l"'sirniiar,"' the matters came to be of "by-..a.iv'§common judgment.
A 39. As against this, the learned senior counsel Mr. Dash';/ant Dave as wetl as Mr. DLN, Rao were heard. According to them, aii the 3.F.Ci:Umentsl'<_ raised by the respondents werzemthe' several litigation between. the ip-arti.es rTi'gi.i.t.v"fr"on§'thex case of H.T. Somashekarafléeddy.virh_i_Chi:"wa's4V'VdVecidedVV by this Court and th'e..V_Ape>{"'C'oIort"ti_ll thevvjudvgment in the case of Governm'en"t_o'f_ Karna--tal§ai ._.vs. AIMO dated 20.4.2006. AThey ft;rth.errVsVu:bni'i~t}"soblsequent to the decision of the project as well as ol'wd':iii'fze'relntjparcels of land in C./-\. co'.fiiing writ petitions after writ petitions would only indicate there is systematic abuse of process of According to them, the GDP-2004, PTR and FWA were all part of the judgment of this Court and also the Apex..VV'C:o;g_rt, therefore once again it is not open to contentions. They further _to.o,i_<_ us.'ll'ti'i:ro.tigih'_'_theK"
NICEL there'aV~!.iVg_'nhnent of the periphe"f=31llii\,[email protected]_ald:[\:aé.,,,.lQe_r:r_thVe» alignment in " Government on the proposed per_iph%er'a.l_'roa.d"'to°'th'e alignment meant for _form"avtiVon@C~f i='oa'd} by BDA, the peripheral as AApev......t.he FWA was to pass 2 kms. a_way._i'rom the Gottigere lake and would near the Gottigere lake; in the a__bseriCe of amendment of FWA, the said "aViE'ghment could not have been approved by the Government by order dated 12.2.2004 and the same is illegal and wherefore; the petitioners cannot challenge the order passed by the Government under Section Zt4~A of the KTCP Act as they are"---_ not interested parties, as it is Clear the material referred to above that question cannot be pergrnitted' 0' agitated at this stage by the the writ petition filged by7--t_he pet,\i.tiio'n'e'rs 0 challenging the imp't1:g'n,ed 0. o.njie~r 4.11.2006 and vie;~""€i>.f_:'tliesA.faet"i:h«at./the challenge to the--xorder_ i5;l'ate'dfj3;2.«.2.2004 on similar grounds.ii--has- bveen in the writ fii--ed§_ Gottigere village 15973 of 2005 .da;ted'*--.2'4l006120055, as referred to ia.bo«v'e.i"