IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.17191/2018 (LB-RES) Between:
Sri Praveen Chandra Shetty, S/o Vittal Shetty, Aged about 50 years, M/s Brahmalingeshwara Earth Movers, R/at Kattemaru Pade House, Kabettu, Karkala, Udupi District – 574 104. … Petitioner (By Sri Udaya Prakash Muliya, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Affairs, M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 01.
2. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council Karkala, Karkala Taluk, Udupi – 574 104.
3. Town Muncipal Council, Karkala, Udupi District – 574 104, Represented by its President. … Respondents (By Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1; Sri Prasanna V.R., Advocate for R-2; R-3 Served) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent No.2 to take such steps as may be necessary to facilitate the petitioner to carryout his operations in compliance of the latest resolution of respondent No.3 dated 01.08.2017 vide Annexure-A, in furtherance of the work order dated 06.05.2017 vide Annexure-A, in furtherance of the work order dated 06.05.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B considering the representations of the petitioner dated 09.04.2018 and 21.11.2017 vide Annexures-F & G respectively and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have filed a memo seeking to withdraw the petition. It reads as follows:-
“It is submitted that in view of the subsequent development, the 6th Respondent having passed an order canceling the work order, this petition having become infructuous, the Petitioner seek leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty reserved to take steps as may be necessary to assail the order of the 6th Respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. In light of the said memo, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition. Further, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take necessary steps to challenge the order of the respondent No.6.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR