B. NARAYANA SHETTY v. THE COMMISSIONER, BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI
Case at a glance
- Bench
- JYOTI MULIMANI
Outcome
Dismissed
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH/MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 37
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 106611 OF 2017 (LB-TAX) BETWEEN:
1. B. NARAYANA SHETTY S/O LATE. B.J. VENKATAYYA SHETTY, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI. KANYAKA PARAMESHWARI DEVASTHANAM’S LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA KALYANA MANDIRAM, S.K.P.T. STREET, BRUCEPET, BALLARI.
2. GADAM GOPAL KRISHNA S/O GADAM VEKATARAMANAPPA, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI. KANYAKA PARAMESHWARI DEVASTHANAM’S LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA KALYANA MANDIRAM, S.K.P.T. STREET, BRUCEPET, BALLARI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER, BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.
REVENUE OFFICER, BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI. PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5115 WP No. 106611 of 2017
HEALTH OFFICER, BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI. (BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.M.S.Haravi., counsel the petitioners and Sri.C.V.Angadi., counsel for the respondents have appeared in person.
2. The Notice dated 26.05.2017 is called in question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
By virtue of the notice, the petitioners are asked to submit a reply. However, the petitioners have hurriedly filed the present writ petition without submitting a suitable reply to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5115 WP No. 106611 of 2017 the notice. In my view, the Writ Petition is premature. Hence, I decline to exercise power under Writ jurisdiction.
Operative part
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH/MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 37
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
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.