Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority as the appellant did not appear before the court, resulting in no substantive decision on the merits of the challenge to the impugned order.
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 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO.380/2022 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT/S
(BY SRI./SMT.: KUMAR J C, ADVOCATE)
W.A.NO.380/2022
2
AND:
…RESPONDENT/S
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 43232/2017 (LA-BDA) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER.
ORDER
The Writ Appeal was dismissed on 01.08.2022 as per the
following office note of the proceedings:
W.A.NO.380/2022
3
“There is not representation. In spite of time
Accorded as provided under Rule 17 of Chapter XII, the office objection has not been complied. As such, the appeal/petition stands dismissed in View of Rule 14(2) of Chapter XII of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959.”
We find that no appearance for the appellant and as such, the
pending applications are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
TYPED BY : UR CASE WORKER: SMV COMPARED BY : SMV
COPY
Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
SRI. R NARAYANAPPA
V KAMESWAR RAO
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
