Petitioners challenged a notice via writ petition. The court dismissed the petitions as having become infructuous based on a filed memo stating the petitions were no longer viable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NOS.105791-105792/2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
2
HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
3
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.
4
R/O: HURADIHALLI, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.
(BY SRI. ANTHONY R. RODRIGUES, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R18)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 03.09.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (VIDE ANNEXUE-"F & F1).
5
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Memo has been filed stating that the writ petitions
have become infructuous. In view of the memo, petitions
are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
Kms
Smt. Mallamma W/o Paparaj
Smt. Parvati W/o Kumaraswamy
State of Karnataka
The Gandabommanahalli Gram Panchayat
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
