IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.4212 OF 2017 (C) Between:
M.Manjunath Son of Late Madaiah 50 years, Proprietor Sri.Maheswari Chitra Mandira Bannerghata Road 36th Cross (Behind Jal Bhavan) Bengaluru – 560 069 ... Appellant (By Sri.Sanjay Gowda N.S. Advocate) And:
1. Sri.Shivaji Rao M Poal Son of Late M.K.Poal 49 years No.14, 15 Santhrupthi, 1st Main 2nd Cross, Maruthi Layout Bhuvaneswarnagar Bengaluru – 560 024 2. The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate Bangalore Urban District Kandaya Bhavan K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 001 ... Respondents (Sri.Prabhuling K.Navadgi, Senior Advocate for Sri. K.V.Manjunath, Advocate for respondent No.1 Sri.Vivek Holla, HCGP for respondent No.2) ---
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.51796/2016 dated 12.6.2017.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the appellant before us, assailing the order dated June 12, 2017, being an interim order in Writ Petition No.51796 of 2016.
2. The Hon’ble Single Judge held that the writ petitioner did not possess necessary certificates to run the touring cinema theatre.
3. Mr.N.S.Sanjay Gowda, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that he could not appear before the Hon’ble Single Judge when the order impugned was passed and as such, he could not show that the writ petitioner possessed necessary materials in support of his claim.
4. In view of the findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
5. This order of dismissal, however, shall not prevent the appellant to apply before the Hon’ble Single Judge for reconsideration of the order in accordance with law, as prayed for by Mr.Sanjay Gowda.
6. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, dismissed.
7. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB