Tejappa S/O Bheemappa Lamani vs The Assistant Commissioner … on 14 March, 2008

Iii ""5"" HI?' GfiU"'I' G? K:-"1.'Iifi}"-:.'i":"~":.1"u"a-"-L RT 'nru"\P"'un' hG"rua"'

nmsn T:-iis Ti-if 14"-'_mT :3? man: ififia.--._
zmnoam T
THE HUN'ELE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK n H:§cfiifiéfii?*f 
umrr PETITION no.3a15vx2qoa_~_:'$t:'§é:iI=; ':  u
azwwsssuz : " * 1  

Tejapga

$fo.Eheema§pa Lamafii L»«, w

Aqa:3fl years, 0cc:Agricu1tur&,

Rfu.Hullatti tanda,. ""*A"*'V

Ta1uk:Ranabannur ~,j ; ,. my,'<

Haveri District. 5" 1,9; _

(Annaxura-G).

3. on the am;  of
statutary V 4gir§rn:§'tivs;  reject this
patitiap~r§ssrvin§t§hh iihhrfif to the petitioner
to syqii hi thsfsphsslsrsqssfi and keeping all the

csntsntimh3C:9én.V,"u_-

i{*,Sri gfiinsah' E. Kulkarni, the learnefi

csunssi_apޤaring for the patitioner submits that

' "the _§stitipner was not made a party to the

itsfirashsfiingsihafora the first respondent. He was

set ?§hti on notice; the impugnad order is not

x*.a9mmuhicatsd to him. Therefore, he requests that

“ria°sirectinn bu issued to the Deputy ccmmissioner

Tito consider his’ appeal on merits and not ta

rnjact tha anticigatad aggoal, as time barred.

REM.

t Fl
3-4
H:

cf
2!’
ti!
El

1|
:1″

Ink
:1′
‘.1.

<3
:1!
Q!
P:

H!
;.a.

5.:

(I
El
SI
:1
1′!’
]..!.

(3
p.

‘1!
SI
:1″

1!
II.

appeal ainng wifih iha ififilifiitififi fa: tha

cnnaanatian af daisy within two waaks framitoésy,

the Appallate Authority, namaIy,_ihnfihffi§§uhyi

ccmmissicner shall conning; thé”Cx$§m§,V.ihV_”

accordance with law and iapyr€¢i&tin§i’fih§:_fa¢t

that the first raspanaaat-Afiaiétantitghpisfiihnafi;

has passed the impugned Gr§a:Vwifh§fit5pfi;tinq the
petitioner on nahiga fang “wihhaut chmhunicating

the imgugnad_order_;§.;h§i§eti§i§naé.

5._~ spfijhct th the iihahff reserved and the
¢bs¢:v§tiqh35,_maiéijihfififiihi above, this writ

getitiqn i$3r9fia¢bfi&;,Hofurder as to costs.

Ehi/-

Iudge