IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.33604 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. S M RAFEEQ S/O LATE C.K.ABDUL SATTAR, AGE 56 YEARS, COUNCILLOR 702, FORT, CHIKABALLAPUR.
2. A.B.MANJUNATHACHAR S/O LATE ASHWATHNARAYANACHAR, AGE 40 YEARS, DOOR NO.2440, M.G.ROAD, SIDDESHWAR CIRCLE, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101 3. G.MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, EX-MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR BAPUJI NAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPUR.
4. AFSAL S/O NANESAB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NAKALAKUNTE, WARD NO.21, CHIKKABALAPUR.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
3. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR, CHIKKABALAPUR – 562 101, CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT, BY ITS COMMISSISONER.
4. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.V.TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, BENGALURU – 560 001.
5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALAPUR – 562 101, CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT.
6. B.K.RUDRAMANI S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGE MAJOR, CHIEF OFFICER, CHIKKABALAPUR CMC, CHIKABALAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA. FOR R1, R2, R4 AND R5 SRI S V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6 R3 – NOTICE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNX-A DT.7.2.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO REMOVING R-6 FROM THE POST OF COMMISSIONER OF R-3 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
Sri S.V.Narashimhan, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has become rendered infructuous due to efflux of time.
2. In view of the submission and due to passage of time, writ petition is dismissed as having infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj