IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.2463 OF 2019 AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.2477-2478 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. C. NAGARAJU ALIAS H.C.N WODEYAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE P.M. CHINNANNA RESIDENT OF OLD DOOR NO.1355 NEW NO.1479 AND 1479/1 1480 AND 1481 SRIRAMPET, MYSORE – 570 001 2. VINOD KUMAR M.N.
S/O C. NAGARAJU ALIAS H.C.N WODEYAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF OLD DOOR NO.1355 NEW NO.1479 AND 1479/1 1480 AND 1481 SRIRAMPET, MYSORE-570001 3. MADAN KUMAR M.N.
S/O C. NAGARAJU ALIAS H.C.N WODEYAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF OLD DOOR NO.1355 NEW NO.1479 AND 1479/1 1480 AND 1481 SRIRAMPET, MYSORE-570001 (BY SHRI C. NAGARAJU, PARTY-IN-PERSON) ... APPELLANTS AND:
1. COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD MYSORE-570024 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / ZONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, ZONE-6 SHESHADRI IYER ROAD MANDI MOHALLA MYSORE – 570 022 3. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 4. INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVARAJA POLICE STATION DHANAVANTRI ROAD SHVARAMPET MYSORE-570001 ... RESPONDENTS (SHRI B.P. ACHAPPA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4) ---
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2019 PASSED IN W.P.NOS.1325-27/2019 AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT We have heard the first and third appellants appearing in person. The order impugned dated 24th January 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the appellants reads thus:
"Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
List these matters along with W.P.Nos.8805-8807/2018.”
Hence, it is crystal clear that there is no order passed by the learned Single Judge which can be said to be against the appellants.
2. The first and third appellants, appearing in-person submit that the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the writ petitions and the writ petitions must be heard by a Division Bench. From the impugned order, it appears that the said contention was not raised by the appellants before the learned Single Judge. If that be so, the appellants can always make an application in that behalf before the learned Single Judge. We are sure that if such an application is made, the learned Single Judge will consider it in accordance with law.
3. Subject to liberty granted above, we decline to entertain these appeals and accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
The pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB