Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17871 (KAR)

SHRI. SATHYAMURTHY. T. S. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/4893/2025 · 2025-03-10

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9981 WP No. 4893 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4893 OF 2025 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SHRI. SATHYAMURTHY. T.S. S/O. LATE SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, ZONE-3, MYSURU, R/AT NO.4616, 12TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE, J BLOCK, DATTAGALLI, MYSURU-570 023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 3. SHRI RAJESH S MAJOR ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) DIVN-2 (UNDER RULE 32 OF KCSRS) O/O THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9981 WP No. 4893 of 2025 4. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION MYSURU-577001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. B.O.ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION NO. NAAAE.201.ACM.2024(E) DATED 15.02.2025 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-F) AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO POSTING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN PLACE OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the writ petition does not survive for consideration. 2. The memo is taken on record. In view of the memo, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. [ Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15