High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 01 KAR CK 0371

V.M.Nagaraj S/o Munishami Gowda, & Ors. vs Smt.Padmavathi W/o N.Rajagopal, & Ors.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 31 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Budihal R.B.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
4365 of 2016 (LB-ELE)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 266 words
1.

This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order dated October 4, 2016, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.47508 of 2016.

2.

An application being I.A.No.2 of 2016 was filed by the present appellants, before the Hon''ble Single Judge, praying to implead them as additional respondents, who claim to be the sitting Councillors of Town Municipal Council, Vijayapura.

3.

The writ petitioner had challenged the notification dated August 26, 2016, issued by the Urban Development Department, whereby, the respondent No.1 in the writ petition changed the reservation post of President of Vijayapura Town Municipal Council.

4.

An application is filed by the appellants seeking leave to prefer the appeal.

5.

We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, herein.

6.

It is the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that they are the sitting Councillors of Town Municipal Council, Vijayapura and if they come on record, they would assist the Court in disposing the matter.

7.

We have perused the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge.

8.

Looking to the materials placed on record we are of the opinion that the appellants, who made an application before the Hon''ble Single Judge, are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to come on record.

9.

There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the application seeking leave to prefer this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed.

10.

In view of dismissal of this appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.

11.

We make no order as to costs.