Dismissed¶30

Arvind Kumar Parekh v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025WP/14093/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; WP 14093/2020 (LB-BMP); Article 226 mandamus; BBMP Commissioner; Karle Infra Tech; Nagavara village; dysfunctional irrigation canal desilting; Sy.Nos.64, 73, 90, 102, 103, 105, 116, 117, 142, 143, 151, 152, 155; representation dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure-Q / Annexure-R); Zonal Commissioner order dated 13.12.2024; writ petition dismissed as infructuous and unnecessary; liberty reserved to challenge Zonal Commissioner's order; interlocutory applications disposed; Justice N S Sanjay Gowda; decision dated 20.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was dismissed as having become unnecessary/infructuous, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate action permissible in law against the order dated 13.12.2024. ¶30

Arvind Kumar Parekh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition survived for consideration after the representation dated 20.02.2020 had been considered by the Zonal Commissioner and an order passed thereon on 13.12.2024.

¶30

Court's answer

Since the representation dated 20.02.2020 had been considered by the Zonal Commissioner and an order passed on 13.12.2024, the prayer in the writ petition would not survive for consideration and the petition had become infructuous.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to take such appropriate action as may be permissible in law in respect of the Zonal Commissioner's order dated 13.12.2024.

¶31

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Hon'ble Mr Justice N S Sanjay Gowda), Oral Order dated 20.01.2025 in Writ Petition No. 14093 of 2020 (LB-BMP). Petitioners Arvind Kumar Parekh and Lalith Kumar Parekh had sought (i) a direction to consider their representation dated 20.02.2020 and (ii) a mandamus restraining the respondents (Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, and M/s Karle Infra Tech) from desilting a dysfunctional irrigation canal passing through Sy.Nos.64, 73, 90, 102, 103, 105, 116, 117, 142, 143, 151, 152 and 155 of Nagavara village, Bengaluru. On the petitioners' own counsel submitting that the representation had in fact been considered by the Zonal Commissioner, which passed an order on 13.12.2024, the Court held that the prayer would not survive and the petition had become infructuous. The writ petition was dismissed as unnecessary, liberty being reserved to the petitioners to take appropriate action permissible in law in respect of the order dated 13.12.2024; all pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2158 WP No. 14093 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 14093 OF 2020 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARVIND KUMAR PAREKH S/O LATE MANGILAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶9

LALITH KUMAR PAREKH S/O LATE MANGILAL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVI H K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶15

M/S KARLE INFRA TECH MARIYANNAPALYA ROAD, VEERANNA PALYA , NAGAVARA, BENGALURU-560 045.

¶16

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. SUDARSHAN KARLE S/O SRI. L.T. KARLE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO. 261, 4TH MAIN,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2158 WP No. 14093 of 2020

¶18

BENGALURU-560 086. (AMENDED CARIED OUT AS PER ORDER DT. 27.11.2023)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S H.,ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.20.2.2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO IT VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The prayer in this Writ Petition was for a direction to consider the representation dated 20.02.2020 vide Annexure-Q and for issuance of a mandamus to direct the respondents not to desilt the dysfunction irrigational canal passing through land in Sy.Nos.64, 73, 90, 102, 103, 105, 116, 117, 142, 143, 151, 152 and 155 of Nagavara village.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner himself submits that the representation dated 20.02.2020 had, in

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2158 WP No. 14093 of 2020

¶28

fact, been considered by the Zonal Commissioner,

¶29

and an order has been passed on 13.12.2024.

¶30

In the light of this submission, it is obvious that the prayer made in the Writ Petition would not survive for consideration and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become unnecessary.

¶31

Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to take such appropriate action as may be permissible in law, in respect of the aforementioned order dated 13.12.2024.

¶32

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶34

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Arvind Kumar Parekh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Parekh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Jyothi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Suchetha K.C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shrinivas P D Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Kusumlatha Verma Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Abdul Nazeer Vs the State of Karnataka

The Assistant General Manager State Bank of Mysore Vs Sri. Prasad B R