Dismissed
Benakamma v. the State of Karnataka
Karnataka HCWP/2221/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS…
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 AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.2221 OF 2020 (CS – EL/M)
BETWEEN:
BENAKAMMA, W/O NAGARAJAPPA M S., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, PCA AND RD BANK, R/A CHIRADONI, BASAVAPATNA CONSTITUENCY, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. MEMBERSHIP NO.7733.
…PETITIONER
(BY SHRI.CHANDRASHEKAR G.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1, R3, 4 AND 6; SHRI.G.V.SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE 97TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY INSERTING PART IXB TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 368(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AGAINST THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ARTICLE 246(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard Chandrashekar. G.M.,learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA for Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 and Sri G.V. Shashikumar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
mbb
BENAKAMMA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
P.S.DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court