Karnataka High Court
Smt Kanakamma V W/O Yerriswamy V vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2022
Bench: S G Bysgpj, Arhj
-1-
WA No. 100360 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100360 OF 2022 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT KANAKAMMA V W/O YERRISWAMY V
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC. MEMBER OF CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT,
R/O. 7TH WARD, HOSAPETE,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT,
Digitally OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
signed by
VINAYAKA B
V
HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.
Location: High
Court of
VINAYAKA
BV
Karnataka,
Dharwad 3. THE COMMISSIONER
Bench
Dharwad.
Date:
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
2022.08.24
10:34:14 HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
+0530
4. SRI. VINAYAK SHETTAR S/O SHANMUKAPPA SHETTAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC. BUSIENSS AND PRESIDENT OF HOSAPETE TALUK
BLOCK CONGRESS, HOSAPETE,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
WA No. 100360 of 2022
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR,HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
(BY SRI. RAJSHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE
THE FINAL ORDER, DATED 01/07/2022 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.102120/2022, CONSEQUENTLY,
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.102120/2022.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the
order dated 1.7.2022 passed in WP No.102120/2022.
2. Head Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Praveen K Uppar,
learned HCGP for respondents 1 and 2, Sri. Gangadhar
J.M., learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.
Rajshekhar Burji, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
3. Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, learned
counsel for the appellant among other contentions
contended that learned Single Judge failed to take note of
the fact that the complaint filed by respondent No.4 could
WA No. 100360 of 2022
not have been entertained by the Deputy Commissioner in
view of judgment of this Court dated 27.11.2008 in WP
No.7739/2008. The learned Single Judge observed that
the Deputy Commissioner shall take into consideration the
objections filed by the petitioner including the question of
maintainability of the complaint at the hands of
respondent No.4. While passing orders on complaint filed
by respondent No.4, we add that the Deputy
Commissioner shall take note of decision referred to above
(WP No.7739/2008), in addition to considering the
objections filed by the petitioner.
4. With the above, writ appeal stands disposed of.
Pending applications do not survive for consideration and
accordingly, they are disposed of.
SD
JUDGE
SD
JUDGE
JTR
