IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI ADI MURTHY S/O.LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.94, CHANNASANDRA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 061 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 036 5. SRI LOKESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O.ASHWATAPPA JINKKE TIMMANAHALLI T.C.PALYA POST BANGALORE-560 036 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI Y.N.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI H.S.RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO GRANT THE INTERIM PRAYER MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN WRIT PETITION NO.10474/2019.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By the impugned order dated 1st April 2019, on a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge issued notice to the respondents and directed filing of statement of objections within four weeks. The contention of the appellant is that the order amounts to rejection of prayer of ad interim relief.
3. The main writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge and notice has already been issued as stated earlier. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain this appeal as the petitioner can always move the learned Single Judge for grant of appropriate ad interim or interim relief. In fact in the impugned order, it is not stated that the prayer for ad interim or interim relief has been rejected.
In view of the above discussion, it is not necessary to entertain the appeal and the same is disposed of.
To enable the appellant/petitioner to move the learned Single Judge for grant of appropriate relief, ad interim relief granted on 11th April 2019 shall continue to operate for a period of one month from today.
We, however, make it clear that all contentions on the merits of the pending writ petition are kept open and continuation of interim relief for a period of one month shall not be construed to be any adjudication on the merits of the writ petition.
The pending interlocutory application does not survive and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB