IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 5th Day of June 1998 BEFORE .HE HON’BLE MR • JUSTICE CI-IANDRASHEKA?AIAH WRIT PETITION NO.10236/1997 Between: Smt .N .Gourarrana, wife of G,V.S.Murthy, major 0 ‘Audumbai’, Behind P & T. Quarters 0 Shettihalli Road, Tumkur. • . .PETITIONER (By Sri .Vighneshwar S.hastri, Adv.) And: 1. State of Karnataka, represented by its SeCretarY to Housing and Urban Development Department, M.S.tsuilding, Bangalore. 2. The Chairman & Deputy Commissioner, I.D,S,M,T, Committee, Tumkur. 3. The City Municipal Council, Tumkur b1 its Commissioner. 4, The Tumkur Urban Development Authority 0 Tumkur by its Commissioner. .. .RESPONDENTS (By Sri.T.G.iadesh, Adv. for —3, Sri.P,S.Manjunath & Sri.H,C.hivaramu, Advs, for R—4) • . • . • . .2 —2— This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 an 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash vide Annexure—D dated 31,03.1997. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in B Group this day, the Court made the following: — 0RDR The petitioner made an application for allotment of sites pursuant to the notification dated 03.02.1990 issued by the Tumkur Urban Development Authority. Thereafter, the City Municipal Council, Tumkur issued a notification calling for allotment of corner and intermediate sites. The said sites are different from the sites which are in Annexure •A’ • Further, Annexure ‘A is issued by the Urban Development Authority whereas AnnexuLe ‘D’ is issued by the City Municipal Council. The case of the petitioner is that when he ha made the application for allotment of sites, the Municipal Council has no authority to call for application for allotment of sites, The . .3 —3- petitioner made the application purusant to the notification issued by the Urban Develoment Authority whereas the notification issued under Annexure ‘D’ is by the City Municipal Council calling for application. The sites referred to in Annexure ‘A’ aLe different from the sites referred to in Annexure ‘D’ because the sites pro posed to be allotted as per Annexure ‘D’ are only the corner and intermediate sites. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus—standi to challenge the notific 8 tion issued by the City Municipal Council. In the result, I pass the following order; Writ Petition is rejected. If the application of the petitioner is pending consideration, the Urban Development Authority may consider and dispose oi the same, in accordance with the law. JE sps/