Y MAHESH Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 26th february, 1992 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992. The learned single judge has rejected the writ petitions on the ground that the appellants herein have not disclosed in the petitions the nature of interest they have in seeking the reliefs in their petitions; that petitioners 3 and 4 in the writ petitions, appellants herein, are close relations of one Sri y.r. aswathanarayana rao, who is the president of madhuvana griha nirmana sahakara sangha niyamitha, Mysore and that the petitioners have instituted the petitions with an oblique motive. Therefore, the learned single judge has declined to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners do not have sufficient interest to maintain the petitions.

(2.) when these appeals came up for orders on 4-8-1992 learned counsel srit.S.ramachandra, who had filed the appeals, sought permission to retire, as learned counsel Sri S.v.jagannath had filed power for the appellants. Accordingly, learned counsel Sri t.s. ramachandra was permitted to retire. Sri S.v.Jagannath, learned counsel had also filed a memo for permission to withdraw the appeals. The memo was ordered to be brought up for consideration along with i.a No. Iii filed by one Sri y.mahesh for impleading. It is also relevant to mention that the aforesaid Sri y. Mahesh has filed writ petition No. 19357 of 1992 on 29th june, 1992 seeking the reliefs similar to those sought in W.P. nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992 (lb). Therefore, in the order dated 4-8-1992 passed in these appeals it was further ordered on the submission made on behalf of Sri y. Mahesh, the petitioner in W.P. No. 19357 of 1992, who had filed i.a No. Iii in these writ appeals for impleading, that W.P. No. 19357 of 1992 should also be heard along with these writ appeals. Accordingly, W.P. no 19357 of 1992 was ordered to be brought up along with these appeals. On 18th august, 1992 the following order was passed in the writ appeals:

(3.) it may also be mentioned here that on 24-4-1992 an interim order was passed in the writ appeals directing the respondent i.e., the Mysore urban development authority "not to give possession certificate to the allottees if the allotment is made in the meanwhile". Again on 8-7-1992 the following interim order was passed in the writ appeals: