- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32895 WP No. 5883 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 5883 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. PURUSHOTHAM A AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE ANANDA SETTY, SHOP NO.10 AND 11, MANDI MARKET , MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE-570001. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE S. SHARADHAMMA, SHOP NO.55 , MANDI MARKET, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE-570001. 3. MADHUKAR M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O MALLIKARJUNA SHOP NO.41 , MANDI MARKET, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE-570001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32895 WP No. 5883 of 2021 2. THE MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. HEMANTH P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 21.01.2021 MADE IN REF NO.R8(2)PR/255/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE AT ANNEXURE-A TO A2 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The writ petition is filed, challenging the notices issued by respondent no.2 calling upon the petitioners to vacate their shops. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 upon instructions submits that the shops admittedly belong to respondent No.2 - the Mysuru Mahanagara Palike. However, the notices have been issued erroneously and hence, subsequently, the same have been withdrawn and appropriate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32895 WP No. 5883 of 2021 proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 have been initiated to have the petitioners evicted from the property. 3. It is seen that the writ petition pertains to issuance of impugned notices and nothing else. As the same has been withdrawn, the writ petition is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28