Sri S L Janardhana vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 9719 Kant

                         1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                     PRESENT
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                       AND

         THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

      WRIT APPEAL NO.4032 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)
                       IN
     WRIT PETITION NO.30927 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI S L JANARDHANA
S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.79/1 6TH CROSS,
SAMPANIGIRAMA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560027
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY. SRI VEERESH M UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.     THE COMMISSIONER
       BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       N R SQUARE
       BENGALURU-560002

2.     THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
       BRUHAT BENGALURU
       MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       N R SQUARE
       BENGALURU-560002
                          2



3.   INTERGLOBE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
     A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
     CENTRAL WING THAPAR HOUSE
     124 JANPATH NEW DELHI-110 001
     BY ITS MANAGING DIRCTOR

4.   SRI RAVI KUMAR SHARMA
     GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS)
     INTERGLOBE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
     NO.77 30/1 RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
     SAMPAGIRAMANAGAR
     BENGALURU-560 027

5.   THE COMMISSIONER
     MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
     NO.49 KHANIJA BHAVANA
     RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560 001

                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N.K.DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & 4)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO
a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2019 IN
W.P.NO.30927/2019 (LB-BMP); b) ALLOW THIS APPEAL.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                          3



                     JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed

against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the

learned Single Judge by which interim order

granted in writ petition has been vacated and

respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been permitted to

carry out construction in accordance with law.

2. Admittedly, the appeal is pending

before this Court since 2019 in which no interim

order of stay of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge has been granted. It is also not in

dispute that respondent Nos.4 and 5 in

pursuance of the liberty granted by the learned

Single Judge, have completed the construction.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties at length.

4. At this point of time, nothing survives

for adjudication of this appeal. Accordingly, the

same is disposed of with the observation that the

during the pendency of the appeal shall be

subject to the outcome of the

W.P.No.30927/2019.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mds/-