IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos. 1878-81/2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI S SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA R/A NO. 1, 25TH BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023.
2. SRI H.R.SHANKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE R.RAMA SHETTY R/AT NO. 1137, 35TH C CROSS, 26TH MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 3. SRI N BALASUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE K.V.NAGESH RAO R/A NO. 1053, 10TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, NAGAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 010.
4. SRI M.SUNAY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O MR.M.R.MRUTHYUNJAY R/A NO. 764, 8TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 79.
(BY SRI JAGANATH K M, ADV.) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. SRI SHANTHILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE CHUNNILAL MUTHA, R/A NO. 74, NARAYAN NIVAS, 4TH CROSS, NEAR NIRMALA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.
3. SMT. K.MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O LATE KRISHNAMACHAR 4. SMT. K RAMAMANI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O LATE KRISHNAMACHAR 5. SRI SRINIVASACHAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHACHAR 6. SRI PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHACHAR R3 TO R6 ARE REPT. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, B.RAVI KUMAR MAJOR, S/O H.S.VENKAT RAO R/A NO.4, 3RD MAIN, PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR, ... PETITIONERS 7TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078.
(BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPLICATIONS AT ANENXURE-E1 TO E4 DTD:24.11.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN INA-CR-11/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE R-1 BEFORE PROCEEDINGS FURTHER IN THE MATTER BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petitions.
2. It is submitted at the bar that as the Special Deputy Commissioner has already disposed of the main matter, relief sought in these writ petitions has been rendered infructuous. Indeed, this is so because in the connected writ petition order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner has been assailed. Therefore, these writ petitions do not survive for consideration.
3. Hence, in view of the memo filed and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, these writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE VP