IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV W.P.NO.3482/2019(LB-RES) BETWEEN 1. DR NITHIN ANANTH BANDEKAR S/O ANANTH BANDEKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO.4095/7, RAMAKANTH NILAYA, 12TH CROSS, SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT. DAVANAGERE-577004.
2. SMT SUNITHA, W/O DR. A H SHIVAYOGISWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.456/2, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, P J EXTENSION, DAVANAGRE-577002.
3. DR VANAJA NARVEKAR W/O LATE R N NARVEKAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O NO.4095/7 RAMAKANTH NILAYA 12TH CROSS,SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE-577004.
4. M/S SRI NANDHI BUILDERS REPTD. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI NAGARAJAIAH M S S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.4, FLAT NO.102, ROSE GARDEN B BLOCK BY PASS ROAD, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BANGALORE-560064, AND ALSO AT "NANDI RESIDENCY NO.2930/535, 537 & 1, DAVANAGERE-577003.
.. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.DEVARAMANI SHIVAKUMAR, S/O D.MAHARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.2517, 3RD A MAIN ROAD, S.S.LAY OUT, B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE--577004.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOINER, DAVANAGAERE DISTRICT – 577003.
4.DAVANAGERE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE PIN-577002, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
…RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI. G.R.GURUMATH, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1, SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3, SRI. B.K.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2018 PASSED IN W.P.NO.47605/2018(LB-RES) ANNEXURE-J ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER Petitioners are seeking for a review of the order dated 19/11/2018 passed in W.P.No.47605/2018 stating that the petition was disposed of without notice and that their rights were also affected. However, noting that W.P.No.50515/2018 has been disposed of with certain directions and also noting that the order passed on an earlier occasion in W.P.No.47605/2018 merely records that further orders were required as the municipal authority had initiated proceedings under Section.321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. As no prejudice is caused no case is made out for interference.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in light of the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu