High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Sss Enterprises vs Sri C Shivalinga Murthy on 26 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Sss Enterprises vs Sri C Shivalinga Murthy on 26 November, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao& Gowda
IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA, c:Rc{111*:~'k:;13:i:1§:Lt3}§:

AT DHARWAD.

DATED THIS THE 25m mv QE»VNOVE'M'B#§R, '2%.}0g. Q  ' x k

PRESENTA % . .    
THE HONBLE MR.Jus'[ifIc:p K;  V
THE HONBLE MR. SREERNASE GOWDA

 CCC;;'No.7iD_1?7.73i1i)8.,:    

BETWEEN  

1. M/s...sss_ EI<éT!fER~PRISE§S-,--«...... 

0;? SMT;Vt}U1}a{A VIVEK, M  
RE3PRESEN'}'}f3~D BY'-gim GPA HOLDER,
N.V;V1°VEKAI$IANDA-.._SV.'AMY,
S/O  M'L¥RUG£3NDRAPPA,
A'&F_.D A1::;ot3'I'53'-YEARS,

~ 13AsAVEsHwA.RA:NAGAR,

% V'  _ V%%'%BE':;LA_;m;f. ...co1v;PLA1mNr.

A  . I ;eyam.%[%v.:myA. ADV ma SR1. K RANGVENDRA

AN11 % % %

   sRr;L- c. SHIVALINGA MURPHY,

A' ' .._DIREC'I'OR OF MINES & GEOLOGY,

3 = '. _No. 49, KHANIJA B}?-IAVAN,

RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANG'rALORE--560 001.  FXCCUSED

( SR1. cs. PATIL AGA .) 

V



ccc FILED U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE c'eN'3*EMm* OF' 
eoums ACT, PRAYING TO iNrrIA'rE~ 1% j}€:c3N'reMPi*   _ '
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST  é_A4CQUSEJ_3_ '  "FOR I
DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED::_-'02*.11,_2'OO'7 Passes

IN W.P. No. 17402/2005.

This Appeal is "On foe  day,'

SREEDHAR RAO, J., de1ive1'edm_tE31e fsfiowirsgz  

This  difected the
respondent    for mining lease

Within i4 to pass appropriate
orders. ajhe in utter disregard to the

order, the not oonsidered the application

order. Hence filed this petifion for

. V “eeiitenjp{.

Advocate has filed an aifidavit of

“the mspoedent The afiidavit states that in View of the

‘ passed by the Division Bench of this Court

w.A.No.7s1/07 in respect of the land in question, is

fiisabled to proceed in the matter. The reasoning gven by

3
the respondent for not disposing of the application is

convincing. We do not find any gmtmd to pmceed in

the matter.

3.The counsel for the pctitkmcr submificfi:

the land in the very same village,

processed and sent to Poflutiop. Cont4z?o,Al Boa1ti

the fact that a paper pubEcatioii’=i§”‘i31ed. it is said’
that false excuses are for has
not placed material on 11:00′ VA oxder in thc Writ

appeal also appkE:¢ s’jto {fie igflvthe news paper. If

the wtfigappealv 11716′ said lease property, it would

amount t.oV”‘e:g>11tg:1iip_t b t.’ passed in the writ appeal. The

matter publication cannot be canvassed as

compel the respondent to consider the

View of the matter, the contempt petition is

% 95/’ ,

Tudge

3d/-9

Tudqé