IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.9036 OF 2014 (LB-RES) Between:
Sri Ramachandraiah S/o Ramegowda Aged: 50 years Z.P. Member (Honnudike) Tumkur District Panchayath Tumkur. …Petitioner (By Sri. Naik N.R., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka By its Secretary Urban & Rural Development Vikasa Soudha Bangalore-560 001.
2. Sri B. Suresh Gowda Member of Legislative Assembly Tumkur Rural Constituency & President of Zilla Panchayath Committee Tumkur-572 001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath Tumkur-572 101.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer Zilla Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub Division, Tumkur-572 101. …Respondents (By Sri. J.N. Naveen, Advocate for Sri A. Nagarajappa Advocate for R3 & R4; Sri Anandeeshwar, HCGP for R3 and R4;) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Struck down the proposal which are inserted in the resolution by scoring the proposals accepted in the meeting made by the petitioner which are Sl.No.57, 58,59 & 60, shown in the resolution dated 12.12.2013 produced at Annexure-K and issue the work order produced at Annexure ‘F’ and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:
(i) Struck down the proposal which are inserted in the resolution by scoring the proposals accepted in the meeting made by the petitioner which are Sl.No.57, 58,59 & 60, shown in the resolution dated 12.12.2013 produced at Annexure-K and issue the work order produced at Annexure ‘F’.
(ii) Direct the respondents to restore allotment of Road Development work as the proposal made by the petitioner.
(iii) Call for records and grant such other relief/s deems fit as the circumstances explained above.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that pursuant to the Annexures-‘K’ and ‘J’, the respondent has completed the work of developing roads. Hence, the writ petition does not survive for consideration.
3. The submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is taken on record.
The above writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
SD/-
JUDGE SSD