Dismissed
M Venktesh v. State of Karnataka
Karnataka HCWP/10830/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.10830 OF 2016(LB-RES)
BETWEEN :
M VENKTESH SON OF SRI.M.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS LESSEE, SHOP NO.6 OF TOWN PANCHAYATH BUILDING THIRTHAHALLI, R/O NO.50-G, SECOND CROSS SF HS NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 096.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K SREEDHAR, ADV.)
AND
2
…RESPONDENTS
SHIMOGA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2: SRI. ASHWATHA NARAYANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RPAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DT.23.2.2015 VIDE ANNX-G AND ALSO IMPUGNED NOTICE DT.20.10.2015 AND DT.26.12.2015 VIDE ANNX-H & J AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY ANDUN SUSTAINBLE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of
this Court to withdraw this writ petition.
Submission is placed on record.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
JUDGE
HA/-
M VENKTESH SON OF SRI.M.SUBBANNA
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577 432
PATTAN PANCHAYATH THIRTHAHALLI
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court