Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited vs The Urban Development Department And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|30 May, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 1737 OF 2013 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ‘AVISHKAR’ OFF BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL BANGALORE – 560 024 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON MR. PAWAN SINGHAL …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SMITHA N., ADV., FOR M/S. UDWADIA UDESHI & ARGUS PARTNERS, ADVs.) AND:
1. THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BYATARAYANAPURA SUB – DIVISION YALAHANKA REGION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.K. VASANTH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADV., FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 28.09.2012 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Mr.
B. V. Muralidhar, submits that the impugned notification dated 28-09-2012 has already been quashed by this Court in the case of M/s. S. R. Constructions vs. State of Karnataka & Others (W.P.No.40/2013 and other connected writ petitions, by order dated 10-04-2013). Therefore, according to him, the present writ petition, which challenges the validity of the same circular, no longer survives.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the position being taken by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to challenge any subsequent demand notice that may be issued by the BBMP against the petitioner.
3. Therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
However, liberty, so prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is hereby granted.
sd/- Judge Rd/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited vs The Urban Development Department And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
30 May, 2017
Judges
  • Raghvendra S Chauhan