SRI A GOUTHAM CHAND v. BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD
WP/63258/2016 · 2025-02-14
Jyoti Mulimani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19333 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19333 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6712 WP No. 63258 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 63258 OF 2016 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
SRI A.GOUTHAM CHAND AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE AMOLAKCHAND, PROPRIETOR, PRAGATHI PRECISIONS, HAVING FACTORY AT AT NO.44, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-68.
AND R/AT: NO.36/2, CASTLE STREET, ASHOKNAGARA, BENGALURU-25. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOUTHAM., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.SRIDHAR & JITENDRA.C.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B.W.S.S.B, CMC-4-(1), SHIMSHA BHAVANA, 46TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.
3.
THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6712 WP No. 63258 of 2016
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
4.
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2;
SRI. S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Gowtham., counsel on behalf of Sri.G.Sridhar., and Sri.Jitendra.C.P., for the petitioner and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar., AGA for respondent No.4 have appeared in person. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed stating that the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. When queried, counsel for the petitioner submits that a conscious decision is taken by the advocate on record and the
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6712 WP No. 63258 of 2016
petitioner to withdraw the petition and if an order is passed, they shall not seek for recalling the same or file a review petition. The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioner and the memo is placed on record. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15