M.R. RAVI KUMAR v. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K S HEMALEKHA
- Neutral citation
- 2024:KHC:33490
Outcome
Withdrawn
the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
(BY SMT AADHYA CHALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.V.VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, GROUND FLOOR, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
SRI YELLAPPA, S/O.LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
SRI VENKATESH S/O.LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT VIBHOOTIPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560037. REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI.NUSHAD S, S/O.SHAFFI, MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33490 WP No. 28659 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/A, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, JYOTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560017.
SMT SHAKUNTALASWAMY, W/O LATE VIRUPAKSHA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/T NO.142B/14, 25TH CROSS, II BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.
SMT VENKATAMMA, W/O.LATE KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A. RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK.
SMT KAVERAMMA, W/O.LATE CHINNAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT VIBHOOTIPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560037.
SRI SHANKARA @ ABDULLA, S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, VIBHOOTIPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560037.
SRI VENKATASWAMY, S/O.LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.140, ARASAPPA LAYOUT, KRISHNAPPANAPALYA, BEHIND NGEF, BANGALORE-560038.
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33490 WP No. 28659 of 2016
THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, KAMARAJ ROAD, BANGALORE-560042.
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, REGIONAL OFFICE NO.13, NAGASAANDRA, M.S.RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, BANGALORE TUMKUR ROAD (NH-4), BANGALORE-560073, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1, SMT KAVYA SHREE K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3, SRI PADMANABHA HOLLA S, ADVOCATE FOR R11, R6 AND R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O/DT: 15.10.2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4, 5, 7 & 8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, SRI M UNNIKRISHNAN, CGC FOR R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 25.4.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN M.A.NO.18/2016 ON THE FILED OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner does not intend to prosecute the petition and seeks to withdraw the writ petition and files a memo to that effect. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33490 WP No. 28659 of 2016
Operative part
2. In view of the submission made and memo filed, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE NP
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.