Disposed

H T Muddappa v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2021WP/10688/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court heard a writ petition seeking allotment of a shop. The court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition based on assurance from the respondents, but clarified that the actual allotment would only be granted upon consideration of specified representations.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw writ petition. Shop allotment to be decided on merits of representations.

H T Muddappa Vs the Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.10688 OF 2020 (LB- BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

H.T. MUDDAPPA S/O THIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AND RESIDING AT NO.594, 10^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN JP NAGAR, 3^RD PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T AND SRI BYREGOWDA M., ADVOCATES (PHYSICAL HEARING ))

¶10

AND

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BHRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ZONAL OFFICE, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,

¶13

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER MARKETS (SOUTH) BHRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶15

¶16

JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX JAYANAGAR IV BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.16.11.2019, 20.1.2020, 24.2.2020 ANENXURE-D1 TO D3 AND ALLOT A SHOP NO.42 IN WESTERN BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR AT JAYANAGARA SHOPPING COMPLEX JAYANAGAR IV BLOCK BENGALURU.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition on the purported assurance of the respondents – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) that they would allot a shop.

¶23

The respondents – BBMP would dispute the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶24

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - BBMP and placing the memo on

¶25

¶26

record, this order permitting the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to withdraw writ petition is restricted only to withdraw the writ petition. Allotment of a shop as sought would be only on the consideration of the representations submitted by the petitioner on 16.11.2019, 20.01.2020 and 24.02.2020.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

nvj CT:MJ

H T Muddappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H T Muddappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Itc Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Acchangi Mahesh Vs the Chief Secretary

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs M/S Prasad and Company (Project Works)Ltd

Miss Navya P Acharya Vs Municipal Commissioner

Snowman Logistics Limited Vs Saffron Global