Sri Thimmappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 February, 2009

-3"

IN THE §-"EEGH CGEJRT GF i~<AR§\§A'E"fiKfiz AT BANGALGRE

BATED THIS W5 16"" my GP FEBRU&.RY, 2339

BEFORE

THE Homms MRJUSTICE RAVI   

WRIT PETETIGN ?%§O.1S{f?'é 3;" .%2m9(SfC-s;%r§k*%  

BETWEEN i

1

2

S:-éTH:rv:mAPPA  k 
AGED Aaeurso vfe»:%:as, 

SEQ ;<9,[a':1:+%Lé;;:*;2é§iTj&%% &% I  

~ "REA 'GA£?i!Gfi;'DA-HA§;'£;I~w'JVILi.AGE

A3.3,€X;'é€'PL_3R:i% i~i;jO7'B_LE %

 ":«TH;5;RI§es(Prohil:>ition of Transfer of certain 

1978, erdering restoration::';»of_:A'tend 

respondent No.3. Irrespective"w-- of 

urged in the peizitien order: ‘Deputy
Commissiener 223V’-‘A2¥é004. The
petitioner has’ for filing this
petitien_,_. contended or
pleaded””‘b’):’r has he explained the

S.rn’t;lilacjas.hree, learned Gevemment Pleader

léppeeringvforvflrespondents 1 8: 2 contends that the

_ this petition has not been satisfactorily

“‘exp”leinved by the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader

appearing fer the respondents.

WW