Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.14292 OF 2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S FULL GOSPEL ASSOCIATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
1ST CROSS, JAYANAGARA EXTENSION
SHIVAMOGGA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI.T.E.OOMMEN
S/O EAPPEN
SRI.T.E.OOMMEN
S/O EAPPEN
AGED: 89 YEARS
SMT.PONNAMMA OOMMEN
W/O T.E.OOMMEN
AGED: 85 YEARS
SERIAL NOS.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR SPECIAL GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
SRI.STANLEY SUNIL
S/O T.E.OOMMEN
AGED 47 YEARS
SRI.STANLEY SUNIL
S/O T.E.OOMMEN
AGED 47 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
FAITH HOSTEL
HOSAMANE EXTENSION
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.GIRISH M.K, ADVOCATE)
AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU – 560 001
THE COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICE AT VINOBHA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201
SRI.S.SHANKAR PRASAD S/O LATE M.SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.30/10, 1ST FLOOR 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS INCOME TAX LAYOUT ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 040
M/S HARSHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM PRESENTLY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.6, 1ST ‘A’ CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
HEBBAL POST BENGALURU – 560 054
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.H.R.HARSHITH …..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESWARAN, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI.R.KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; R.4 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R.2 TO CONSIDER AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.08.2020 AND 20.10.2020 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURES-F AND G AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner No.4 who is the Special Power of Attorney Holder of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 has appeared virtually and makes a statement that the petitioners do not intend to prosecute the case and they want to withdraw the writ petition.
The counsel on record identifies the petitioner No.4. The submission made by the petitioner No.4 is taken on record and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM