IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.55384-85 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SUDHAKAR BALAKRISHNAN, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PARTNER OF SNAP FITNESS, VARTHUR HOBLI, K.R.PURAM.
2. SMT. SASI REKHA SUDHAKAR, W/O SRI.SUDHAKAR BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER OF SNAP FITNESS VARTHUR HOBLI, K.R.PURAM.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.226, PHASE – I, ‘ADARSH PALM MEADOWS’, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, RAMAGUNDANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 066.
… PETITIONERS (BY MR.SRINIASA T.P., ADV. (ABSENT)) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, OFFICE OF THE BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.05.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE – F AND NOTICE DATED 14.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE – J ISSUED BY THE R-3 POLICE INSPECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioners.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Records perused. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia have assailed the validity of the Notice dated 30.05.2015 and 14.11.2018 by which the petitioners were asked to appear before respondent No.3 on 05.06.2015 and 28.11.2018 respectively. The writ petitions are pending before this Court since 2018, in which no interim order has been passed. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions as the impugned notice has lost its efficacy by efflux of time.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-