Dismissed

Narayan Bhairu Sawant v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/27521/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged land acquisition notifications for an STP project at Belagavi, alleging the acquisition was malicious because funds were allegedly wasted on a previous Alarwad site proposal. The Court found the petition misconceived, dismissing it after an Lokayukta enquiry confirmed no money was spent on the abandoned proposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, rejecting allegations of mala fides and wastage of public funds.

Narayan Bhairu Sawant Vs the State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 27521 OF 2019 (LA-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . NARAYAN BHAIRU SAWANT

¶10

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 244/52, FULBAG GALLI, BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT, BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶11

2 . PRASAD SUNIL PRABHU

¶12

AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: PLOT NO. 309, SHIVTIRTH APARTMENT, MAHANTESH NAGAR, KANABARGI ROAD, BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT, BELAGAVI - 590 010.

¶13

3 . KOMAL DHARMAPPA JAKANNAWAR

¶14

AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 329/2, SUBHASH GALLI, BALEKUNDRI K.H.

¶15

¶16

TALUK AND DISTRICT, BELAGAVI - 590 183.

¶17

4 . SUNIL MONAPPA KHANNUKAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. 65/1, BHANDUR GALLI, BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 590 001.

¶18

5 . VISHWANTH PUNDLIK YALAJI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: 572, MATH GALLI, BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT, BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶19

... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI D. RAVI KUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELAGAVI, SUB-DIVISION, BELAGAVI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶24

3 . THE KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR,

¶25

¶26

BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT, BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶27

4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, TALUK: BELAGAVI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶28

5 . THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CITY OF BELAGAVI, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶29

THE LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. (IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD 20.09.2021)

¶30

... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & 4, SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & SRI VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶32

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A i.e. THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 21/08/2010 BEARING No. Kram Kumsha Bhuswa/Vivahi4112 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AND ANNEXUREB i.e. THE DECLARATION NOTIFICATION MADE UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, DATED 7.9.2011 BEARING No. Kam E:10 Bhuswa 2011, ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT & ETC.

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and

¶37

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND

¶38

C.A.V. ORDER

¶39

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)

¶40

Heard learned Advocate Mr. D. Ravikumar Gokakakar for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Swetha Krishnappa for respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Advocate Mr. Veeresh R. Budihal for respondent, learned Advocate Smt. Sumana Baliga for respondent No.5 and learned Advocate Mr. Venkatesh Arabatti for respondent No.6.

¶41

The present petition is filed as public interest petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners, five in numbers, claiming to be the guardians of the interests of the farmers community of the Belagavi Taluka and in the vicinity, are aggrieved in respect of the acquisition of the lands situated at Belagavi and Halaga Vilalge of Belagavi Taluka, which are acquired for the construction of sewage treatment plant project (STP project).

¶42

¶43

2.1 What is prayed is to set aside Notification dated 21^st August 2010 issued by respondent No.4 – the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi under Section 4(1) as well as Notification dated 7^th September 2011 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to restart the said STP project at Alarwad Taluka-District Belagavi.

¶44

2.2 There is another limb of the prayer in the nature of third prayer, seeking direction against respondent No.3-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and respondent No.5the Commissioner, Corporation City of Belagavi to give accounts in respect of Rs.204 lakhs allegedly spent towards allegedly half- done STP project at Alarwad.

¶45

The case of the public interest petitioners is inter alia that the aforementioned Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) came to be issued to forcibly acquire the agricultural lands. It is the case that acquisition of agricultural lands which are fertile, is not justified and the respondents could not be permitted to raise STP at the cost of agricultural lands. It is the case that for the purpose of STP barren land admeasuring 50 Acres which is partly owned by the State and situated at Alarwad, Taluka and District

¶46

¶47

Belagavi was acquired and that the said land is suitable for the project. It is stated that the Corporation of City of Belgaum passed resolution dated 29.06.1985 for proposing the said 50 Acres of land at Alarwad to be utilized for drainage. It is further case that tenders were passed for that purpose.

¶48

3.1 It was stated that now the acquisition is again resorted to in respect of the land situated at Belagavi and Halaga Villages of Belagavi Taluka where STP project is proposed to be set up instead of at Alarwad. It is the allegation that the acquisition of the land at Belagavi is politically motivated and would result into serious loss to the farmers. The allegations on the second part are that the previous acquisition at Alarwad is halted eventhough and even after the huge amount was spent for construction of the underground pipelines.

¶49

3.2 The petitioners stated that they had made representations to the competent authority. It is claimed that expenditure of Rs.274 lakhs was incurred and that the project was left as half done, since fresh acquisition as per the Notifications under the Act was resorted to. The petitioners have produced copies of revenue record to show that the lands are barren at Alarwad,

¶50

¶51

Khasbag and Muchandi, even though the STP project is proposed by acquiring the land at Belagavi.

¶52

Learned advocate for the petitioners raised the following submissions,

¶53

(i) The present acquisition initiated by issuing the Notifications dated 21.8.2010 and 07.09.2011 under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act is a colourable exercise of powers.

¶54

(ii) The first project for construction of drainage plant at Alarwad is left incomplete and that there was no necessity to start fresh acquisition.

¶55

(iii) Huge funds were expended for setting up STP project at Alarwad. The present project is again started without application of mind.

¶56

(iv) 50 Acres of land at Alarwad is barren land and was suitable for the project of STP. In past the State has cancelled the acquisition for atleast two times as the acquisition of land was not found feasible.

¶57

¶58

(v) The acquisition proceedings are arbitrary and actuated with mala fides where the interests of the farmers is seriously jeopardised and sacrificed.

¶59

4.1 Respondent No.3-the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board filed its reply-cum-statement of objections to inter alia submit that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the land acquisition notifications inasmuch as they are not the owners of the land. The lands at village at Halaga, Bagelwadi Hobli, Bengalum Taluk comprising of various survey numbers admeasuring, in all, 19 Acres and 12 Guntas were sought to be acquired. It is contended that the petitioners do not have any interest in the subject matter acquisition and that the petition is camouflaged petition filed at the instance of the land owners.

¶60

4.2 As regards the allegation that earlier the sewage plant at Alarwad was proposed and started and that the amount was expended, it is the stand of respondent No.3 that the said proposal to construct STP at Alarwad was rejected by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on the ground of unsuitability. Respondent No.5-Corporation is the beneficiary of the construction of STP at Halaga village. According to respondent No.3, the place notified for setting up the plant at

¶61

¶62

Halaga village is ideal because of its gravitational location. It is the case that there is about 350 kms. of sewer network of various diameters which was laid across the City of Belgaum and same is to be treated before using the same for other purposes. It is stated that setting up of STP at Halaga village is a necessity.

¶63

4.3 It is further stated that the present acquisition has been challenged by the land owners by filing Writ Petition Nos.6735967366 of 2011 before the Dharwad Bench of this Court. It is also stated that in view of non-providing of STP for sewage of Belgaum City, the State Pollution Control Board has filed a criminal case before IV Judicial Magistrate, First Class Belgaum against respondent No.5-Corporation. It is also given out that respondent No.3-Water Supply and Drainage Board entered into an agreement with a contractor named M/s. Garpore Engineers Private Limited and the contract for constructing the STP at Halaga was awarded and the letter of acceptance dated 26.09.2016 was also given to the contractor. The work order, it was stated, has been issued on 14.10.2016.

¶64

4.4 By producing copy of the judgment dated 17.02.2017 in the aforementioned writ petitions decided by the Dharwad Bench, it is contended that the aspects of challenge to the acquisition have

¶65

¶66

been considered in the said judgment. It is further contended that the very advocate who appeared for the petitioners in the said Writ Petition Nos.67359-67366 of 2011 is the advocate who has filed the instant petition styling it as public interest litigation. Not only that, it is contended that in the present petition, the factum of the aforesaid earlier Writ Petition Nos.67359-67366 of 2011 has not been disclosed. It was submitted that the STP itself is in public interest and that the land owners would be compensated as per the law.

¶67

4.5 Respondent No.5-Commissioner of City Corporation of Belagavi has also filed his affidavit in reply raising various submissions to oppose the prayers of the public interest petitioners. In the said affidavit, the facts was stated by producing Notifications dated 27.02.1984 and 19.09.1985 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) respectively of the Act at the earlier point of time, whereby the lands at Basavan Kudachi and Alarwad were sought to acquired, the land owners had filed Writ Petition Nos.18192-18204 of 1985 and obtained stay from the High Court. Subsequently, it was stated that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Belagavi refused to give permission for setting up the STP plant. It was stated that the first reason given was that

¶68

¶69

the layout plan was developed adjacent to the proposed STP project and secondly, Belgavi-Bagalkot road was approximately at a distance about 1.9 kms from the proposed site, because of which availability of the area of buffer zone was ruled out. It was sated that the project to start STP at Alarwad was dropped and decision was taken to establish the STP at Halaga with larger capacity for the growing needs of the City. A clear stand is taken that Alarwad is at a distance of 9.5 kms from the city corporation area and the site is best suited for the STP project.

¶70

4.6 Respondent No.5-Commissioner has answered the allegation of the petitioners that huge public money was spent pursuant to the earlier proposal of STP at Alarwad by stating thus,

¶71

“On perusal of the documents available in the office and being a responsible Officer, I am making statement on oath that no money is spent for setting up of Sewage Treatment Plant in Alarwad village as alleged by the Petitioners. I state that the allegation in the writ the amount spent on STP plant at Alarwad is not correct”.

¶72

4.7 It was stated that due to some confusion, instruction was

¶73

given that Rs.228.73 lakh was spent in respect of STP project at Alarwad which was abandoned. Statements are produced at Annexures-R8 and R9. Annexure-R8 is the communication dated

¶74

¶75

14.09.2021 from the office of the Executive Engineer to the Commissioner and Annexure-R9 is the statement which fortifies that no amount was spent on the project which is abundant.

¶76

The subject matter of controversy could be viewed by dividing it into two aspects. First is that the acquisition for STP project proposed earlier by seeking to acquire the lands at Alarwad was abandoned which could not have been legitimately done as per the case of the petitioners and that the fresh acquisition was not necessary at Belagavi in view of the earlier proposal. Secondly, it is the case and the grievance that huge amount to the tune of 204 lakhs and more was spent by the authorities in the earlier proposed project at Alarwad was without application of mind causing loss and wastage of public money. It is the case of the petitioners that in both the ways the conduct on the part of the respondents is prejudicial to public interest.

¶77

5.1 There are at least two preliminary considerations because of which the Court would remain disinclined to consider and look into the prayers. Firstly that the Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act were issued in the year 2010 and 2011 respectively. The present petition is filed in the year 2019, which is after a gap of nine years. This long delay in filing this public

¶78

¶79

interest petition depicts that the petitioners were never vigilant and that the petition filed as public interest litigation has the purpose any other than public interest.

¶80

5.2 The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of material facts. It is disclosed in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents that earlier Writ Petition Nos.67359-67366 of 2011 challenging the acquisition proceedings were filed by the landowners. The same was dismissed by this Court and in the writ appeal thereagainst, no interim relief was granted. It could be hardly presumed that the petitioners were not aware about filing of earlier writ petition inasmuch as the representation of the petitioners in both the cases was same.

¶81

5.3 The refusal of permission for setting up STP at Alarwad by the Pollution Control Board was on valid ground. A residential layout in the name of Urban Ashraya Scheme with 308 house sites was proposed adjacent to project site by the Karnataka Housing Board. In the said housing layout, 1570 houses were planned and that the area was only 500 meters away from the proposed STP. The STP at the Alarwad village would have caused health hazards. Furthermore, in the Northern direction of

¶82

¶83

the site, away just by 1.9 kms Belagavi-Bagalkot road is situated. The 100 meters buffer zone around STP site is necessary, which was not possible. The schools and hospitals and other public utility places have come up near the site. Thus, when the STP was shifted to Halaga site from Alarwad site, no fault could be found.

¶84

5.4 With issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition process was started. Notification under Section 16(1) was issued on 6^th August 2013. The land stood vested with the respondentgovernment. The possession was taken over by the respondents as per the Panchanama drawn on 26^th November 2013. All the above aspects are relevant in additional to above factual consideration. Any attribute of public interest was not sacrificed when the plant site was decided to be shifted from Alarwad to Halaga village.

¶85

5.5 In course of hearing of the petition, the court had an occasion to pass order on 20^th September 2021. Therein the court was concerned about the allegation was huge amount was already spent in respect of the STP plant proposed at Alarwad and that the public money was wasted, even thereafter, as per

¶86

¶87

the allegations by the petitioners, the plant site was shifted. Order dated 20^th September 2021 provided that the Commissioner shall file affidavit in respect of the amount spent for STP project, Alarwad village as well as the reasons for abandoning the project after spending 228.73 lakhs. Pursuant to the above order, respondent No.5-Commissioner, Belagavi filed an affidavit and stated, as extracted above, that not a single rupee was spent in respect of the project at Alarwad which was given up to be shifted to Halaga village.

¶88

5.6 Not only that respondent No.6-Lokayukta, along with memo dated 6^th February 2023 filed a report of enquiry on the aspect about the extent of work of construction of project at Alarwad and the amount spent. The entire report dated 9^th January 2023 is extracted hereinbelow with relevance,

¶89

“REPORT OF INVESTIGATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 27/9/2021 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU IN WRIT PETITION NO. 27521/2019 (NARAYAN BHAIRU SAWANT & ORS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS)

¶90

The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its Order dated 27/9/2021, while directing the Lokayukta establishment to be impleaded as Respondent No.6 in Writ petition No.27521/2019 has called upon the Lokayukta "to conduct a fact finding enquiry in the matter whether any amount has been spent in respect of STP project at Allarwad

¶91

¶92

village and if the amount was spent, the total amount spent, if any, shall also be reflected in the report." This direction was issued in the context of dispute in respect of the fact that whether any amount was spent towards the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) project at Allarwad village. It is necessary to extract the order dated 27/9/2021 in Writ petition No. 27521/2019, which reads as under:-

¶93

"In the present case, there is a serious dispute in respect of the fact whether amount was spent in respect of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Project, Allarwad or not. Undisputedly, the project site was changed from Allarwad village to Halaga village.

¶94

Various documents on record reflect that amount was spent on STP project and therefore, whether the amount was spent or not has been seriously disputed and it requires probe.

¶95

This Court, on 20/9/2021 has directed to implead Lokayukta establishment as respondent No.6 and therefore, Respondent No.6 is requested to conduct a fact finding enquiry in the matter whether any amount has been spent in respect of STP Project at Allarwad village or not and if the amount was spent, the total amount spent, if any, shall also be reflected in the report.

¶96

As directed by this Court on 20.09.2021, Respondent No.5 Commissioner, Belagavi is present in the Court today. The affidavit of Respondent No.5 reveals that not a single rupee has been spent in respect of the Project which has been abandoned. Additional affidavit to be filed by Respondent No.5 giving reasons for abandoning the project.

¶97

Personal appearance of Commissioner, Belagavi is exempted."

¶98

¶99

Therefore, the scope of this enquiry is to find out the fact whether any amount has been spent in respect of Sewage Treatment Plant project at Allarwad village and if so, how much amount was indeed spent. The mater was got investigated through technical wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta by deputing one Executive Engineer Sri Niranjan S. He has visited the spot, conducted inspection and taken photographs regarding his visit to the place. The said inspection was conducted in the presence of 14 persons named below.

¶100

(1) Sri M.R. Anantha Padmanabha, Executive Engineer, City Corporation, Belagavi;

¶101

(2) Sri U.D. Mahant Shetty, Law officer, City Corporation, Belagavi;

¶102

(3) Sri Suresh Marnal, Executive Engineer, Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Belagavi Division, Belagavi;

¶103

(4) Sri Ashok I. Shirur, Asst. Executive Engineer, Karnataka Water Supply and Drainage Board, Project Sub Division, Belagavi;

¶104

(5) Sri Ishwar Ullagaddi, Project Director, District Urban Development Cell, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi;

¶105

(6) Sri Ashok Mannikeri, Tahsildar, Asst. Commissioner office, Belagavi;

¶106

(7) Sri Preetham Gandh, Surveyor, City Corporation, Belagavi;

¶107

(8) Sri Sushant Kamble, Second Division Assistant, City Corporation, Belagavi;

¶108

¶109

(9) Karnataka Water Supply and Drainage Board, Project Sub Division, Belagavi;

¶110

(10) Sri Narayan Bhauru Sawant, (Petitioner in Writ petition No.27521/2019)

¶111

(11) Sri Prasad Sunil Prabhu, (Petitioner in Writ petition No.27521/2019);

¶112

(12) Sri Komal Dharmappa Jakkannavar, (Petitioner in Writ petition No.27521/2019);

¶113

(13) Sri Sunil Monappa Khannukar, (Petitioner in Writ petition No.27521/2019);

¶114

(14) Sri Vishwanath Pundalik Yalaji, (Petitioner in Writ petition No.27521/2019)

¶115

During the spot inspection all the 5 writ petitioners were also present. The Investigation officer has drawn a mahazar. He has noted that no construction work of STP was undertaken nor was any amount spent for setting up STP at Allarwad Village. The Investigation officer has submitted a report dated 28/2/2022 along with certain records. The copy of the report along with spot mahazar and photographs are produced along with this report.

¶116

The spot inspection conducted in the presence of the writ Petitioners and several other officers, disclose that no construction work of Sewage Treatment Plant was undertaken at Allarwad Village. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of report of the investigation officer.

¶117

During the course of investigation, the Chief Engineer of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Dharwad was called upon to submit a report regarding deposit of Rs.5.00 Lakhs and Rs.204.66 Lakhs with the Board at Belagavi for construction of Allarwad Village. The Chief Engineer, Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Dharwad has submitted a report dated 18/3/2022,

¶118

¶119

forwarding the report of the Executive Engineer dated 17/3/2022. It is stated in the report that in the Council Meeting of the Belagavi City Corporation dated 29/6/1985, under subject No.539, approval was granted for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant at Allarwad village at an estimated cost of Rs.305.00 Lakhs. For the said purpose, proposal was also submitted for acquiring required extent of land. However, as the farmers raised objections for acquisition, the land could not be acquired. Thereafter, since interim orders were issued by the Court, the Commissioner, Belagavi City Corporation instructed not to take up the work. Therefore, it is submitted in the letter that no work of construction of STP was undertaken and this aspect was brought to the notice of the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Lokayukta, during his spot inspection. The copy of the letter of the Chief Engineer, Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Dharwad along with the letter of the Executive Engineer, KUWS&DB dated 17/3/2022 is produced along with this report for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.

¶120

5. Therefore, the following finding is recorded:

¶121

That no work for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant was undertaken at Allarwad Village of Belagavi District nor was any amount spent for setting up of the Sewage Treatment Plant.

¶122

This report is placed for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in compliance with the directions issued in Writ petition No.27521/2019 dated 27/9/2021’’.

¶123

5.7 The report was thus based on the inspection conducted by

¶124

team of 14 expert members. It records that all the five petitioners were present during the inspection. As could be seen, the finding

¶125

¶126

was recorded that no construction work of the plant was undertaken at Alarwad village of Belagavi district, nor any amount was spent towards the project at that site.

¶127

For all the aforesaid reasons as well as the facts which were elicited after competent enquiry the entire challenge in the name of public interest is misconceived both on facts and in law. The conclusion is inevitable that public interest has not suffered in any respect in relocating the STP project at Halaga Village by shifting the same from Alarwad site. The lands were acquired for the said public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was a lawful exercise. The shifting of the project was bonafide action on valid grounds. The inquiry report established that no public money was wasted in earlier proposal.

¶128

7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

¶129

Sd/(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶130

Sd/(K.V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶131

AHB

Narayan Bhairu Sawant v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Bhairu Sawant v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Giriyayya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Samith Loyal Dsouza Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D. Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs Sri Naveen Kumar S

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Ahl Mining Company Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka