IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SMT. S.CHAYA JOIS DAUGHTER OF SRI A.SURYANARAYANA JOIS AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.647 10TH ‘A’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST BENGALURU-560 086.
(BY SMT:ANKITA G.SHELKE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:PRAMOD N.KATHAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANT 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CITY POLICE BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU EAST DIVISION BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 086.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POLICE STATION MAHALAKSHMIPURA BENGALURU-560 086.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001.
7. SRI KARAN SON OF SMT. S.CHAYA JOIS AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 647 10TH ‘A’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST BENGALURU-560 086.
8. THE AREA EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KSHETRA SHIKSHANA ADHIKARI NORTH ZONE, II BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.
9. SRI A. SURYANARAYANA JOIS SON OF LATE ARKESHWARA JOIS AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.647 10TH ‘A’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST BENGALURU-560 086.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:VASANTH V.FERNANDES, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R6 & R8; SRI: K.DIVAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:K.SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.14046 OF 2015 DATED 7.12.2015.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.14046 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge in accepting the report of the Deputy Commissioner and directing respondent Nos.7 and 8 therein to vacate the premises within one month from that date, respondent No.7 therein has filed this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant firstly contends that the appellant has vacated the premises. However, the report of the Deputy Commissioner would indicate that the gift deed has been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
3. However, on considering the contentions, we do not think it otherwise that such a fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge with regard to the validity of the merit of the report by the Deputy Commissioner. If the same was placed for consideration, obviously, the learned Single Judge would have considered the same. The only issue before the learned Single Judge was pertaining to the report as directed by this Court. Under these circumstances, since the appellant has since vacated the premises and the contention with regard to the correctness of the report being challenged herein for the first time, we do not find any good grounds to entertain the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-