Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash an impugned notification were allowed. The High Court of Karnataka held that subsequent developments rendered the petitions infructuous and dismissed the same.
Writ petitions dismissed as having become infructuous.
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 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
W.P. NO. 108571/2019 & W.P. Nos.109214-215/2019 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI.SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
3
DIST: BELAGAVI.
(BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
4
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 05.03.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the subsequent developments, the writ petitions would not
survive for consideration.
In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bvv
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MISS NIRMALA SHIVANAPPA NAIKAR AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
S.G. PANDIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
