Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19462 (KAR)

SHRI. ABDUL RASHEED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/4528/2026 · 2026-06-05

B M Shyam Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26817 WP No. 4528 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4528 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. ABDUL RASHEED S/O. SALEHA SHARIFF, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC PETTY BUSINESS, R/AT. SHOP NO.3, KSRTC BUS STAND, OPPOSITE PATTANA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE-572129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUNIRAJ GOWDA V..,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26817 WP No. 4528 of 2026 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU. PIN CODE-572101. 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER, KORATAGERE PATTANA PANCHAYATH, KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE-572129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 19.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO. TOW. PAN. KO CR 05/2025-26 TO THE PETITIONER, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26817 WP No. 4528 of 2026 ORAL ORDER This Court has called upon a learned Standing counsel for the third respondent to secure instructions on service of notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that copies of the petition have been served. It is seen from the previous proceedings that none has appeared for the petitioner despite multiple opportunities. It is obvious that the concerned is not interested in prosecuting the petition and as such, the petition stands dismissed for default. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB