E.VINAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellant appearing in person. The appellant has stated that he is elected as a Councilor/Member of the City Municipal Council at Raichur. The appellant is not a party to the writ petition in which the impugned order has been passed.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that in the writ petition filed by the ninth respondent, the learned Single Judge directed the Member Secretary of the Urban Development Department to file a detailed affidavit on the subject of controversy. The learned Single Judge also called for the original file. To enable the Principal Secretary to file an affidavit and to enable the State Government to produce the file, the petition was ordered to be listed on 1st April 2020 and till then, a direction was issued not to precipitate the matter by filling the posts of President and Vice President to the City Municipal Council, Town Municipal Council and Town Panchayath Council.

(3.) Thus, the prayer for interim relief is not finally decided by the learned Single Judge.