City Municipal Council vs Sri Subhansab on 16 November, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT
BENCH AT DHARWAD. 

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,_'éQ'éci3:.~4 n

PRESEN T

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ;K'§A'VS'RE_E:DHA:}§f 

AND A
THE HONBLE MR.  RAVI' .MA;;1>M7AfIfi
WRIT PETITIOIVE 'N_O.8'6'7%O/C2Q.\C)8--oLGM--COf\i)

BETWEEN:

CitY Municipaiscowjicie,  =:   i"
Haveri, HaV.e3'i"»DiS'tfi_£?t,"       .
Represented by-the Comm'IjSsi'o~ner."v.§ 

 ""     PETITIONER
(by Sriimahesh'Wecjeye'r'«,t._$;v..Mahesh, Advocates)

AND:

1. ;Sri _Subhan,sa'b s/o Babajansab Bankapur,
._"}4\geci 38 yea'rsv,.----OccupatIon Coolie,

' _  Re'siden~t_ of Haven,
 ..1'aE_uk 'andv District Havers.

2.g =.DIst'r lift Consumer Dispute
 Red:-.e_ss.al Forum, Haveri,
"Ha"v.eri' District represented by its
Ptesident.
 RESPONDENTS

P.S. Sunkad, V.S. Bhlmakkanavar, Advocates

air”

to

This WP is filed to quash the order passed by the
State Commission in Appeai No. 1811/07 .~'”ciated
11.12.2007, etc.

This WP is coming on for orders3’rth’i’s,j’L**:tia-gr},

Sri K. SREEDHAR RAE), Judge made the foi|ow’in_g:v

Counsei for R1 submits th’a_ti:”:jespo»nVd_ent

Prepared to take the sho9″E>oTrV”‘e~mise”s and’

conditions mentioned in.__the.=aiictio4riVVV”proceeoings’;V: In view
of the submissions, the petitioner
submits that. terms indicated
a bove. Hen oer -d__ ‘ off.

S151./’~
EESDQEZ
111111 1 $5.;

j§§§§G’E.