Dismissed

Sri.Poolappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2016WP/10391/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

a jurisdictional objection was raised regarding the legality of a notice issued for a second appeal; thebenchheld that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had already filed an earlier appeal which was dismissed; consequently, the petition wasdismissedandthe stay vacated.

What did the court decide?

Vacates the interim order of stay; dismissal of the writ petition as misconceived due to suppression of facts by the petitioner.

Sri.Poolappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.10391 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Poolappa, Son of Late Hanumappa, Aged about 50 years, Sheegehalli Village, Bidrahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk 560 067.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru 560 001.

¶13

The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,

¶14

¶15

Bengaluru 560 001. Represented by its Secretary.

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Behind Kandhaya Bhavana, Bengaluru 560 009.

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, Kandhaya Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru 560 009.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru 560 067.

¶19

Sri. Narayanaswamy, Son of Muniyellappa, Aged about 50 years, Shegehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk 560 067.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By Shri H. Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5;

¶22

Shri Padmanabha Mahale, Senior Advocate for Shri Dayananda K.G., for Respondent No.6)

¶23

¶24

¶25

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 27.1.2016 passed by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-D as ab-initio void.

¶26

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to file objections to the application filed for vacating stay. The allegation in the application is that the petitioner had earlier approached the Assistant Commissioner and had filed an appeal, which was dismissed. Later, suppressing the fact that he had filed an earlier appeal which was dismissed, the second appeal was filed before the very authority.

¶29

The petitioner has alleged that the fourth respondent

¶30

was not vested with any power of review and therefore, the notice issued was illegal, as a result of which the order of stay has been granted by this Court.

¶31

¶32

However, it is on noticing that the petitioner had

¶33

suppressed the fact of filing of an appeal earlier, that notice had been issued, which was not in exercise of power of review, but it was to check the mischief. Therefore, the petition is misconceived and the petition is dismissed.

¶34

The interim order of stay granted earlier stands vacated.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Sri.Poolappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Poolappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Krishna Kumar B R Vs Bangalore Development Authority

M/S E I Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

The Mangala Water Consumers Co-Operative Society Vs the Director

Smt Muniyamma Vs Sri Gunda Reddy

Shivakumar T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B K Keshavappa Vs the State of Karnataka