IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAQ V "
(mom? BENCH A31 :>H--AR\v' AD '. " 1" 1
DATED mxs ma 389 :)AY:"()F}égU€;U:s*r_, 2{:Gs9 "
BEii?§§'RE A % %
THE HONBLE rvrR..JU%_%s'rrcEAimijrzm..,SHAN*mNAG0UDAR
WRIT PE'1*mo"N 'E0."53§'i?7iZf§?{)£iQ({}M~RES)
BETWEEN: I W _ _ k
BALAJI NAIK; "G'v.;
ANDj*
" V' - 1. "r*;'1:iE?--.:'e;=:J13* n:v:sio$iALMAG1sTRATE
' = AND, ASSESTANT COMMISSIONER
V §ix'}SI'.§}fI'»vSi}I3'_I)I\?ISiON, HOSPET.
2; :'i4éE TA:-iA:~z:LDAR,
§i.ND.,'f'Afii5'KA EXECUTIVE MflG§STRATE,
I-:c:~..sPm.
' .3'. ""£*HE #3:, MARIYAMMANAHALLE 12.3.
V. HOSPE1', 0:37'. BELLARY. .. RESPONDENT?
(E? FEK. HATT1, ace? FOR RESPONDENTS)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
227 ms’ mm CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYIN1} ‘I’Q”Q{3A;s–;e§
THE NOTICE DATED 2412/ 2009 VIBE ANN.+A’~PA3sEr:- B”i’._
THE 18? RESPONDENT AS THE SA;/sE..BEi:~IG 1LL;Ec:A;;_~AN-2;)
NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND I+f:I’c.__’ ; ” «
THIS PETITION COMENG 4(;=N”.F0R .;”2REL§wiINA§’Y–V.%
HEARING, was ram’ THE czcsxrm’ mag THE ._FeLLQw1NG;-., ‘
A
Heard tbs CO1}nS£’~’..1 ” ; fijefifioner and the
Gcvenzmfxzzf .i_’§’5r ..t1′:=:f:«- Vifispéiiiiients.
= ‘ NC¥’dL§;?; i1.iii%1§§§{11re” “A” dated 24.2.2009 issued
by the Cgofiéginissioner, Hospet, directing the
his pouitxy farm from
‘ tanda to any other place having
kilometers from that place, is called in
que:~;tic:}J:1.V
3. figccarding to the petitianer, he is running the
poultry farm since twenty years in the village limits of
\/’>
3
Mariyarnmanahalli tanda and in those u
no heuses in that area. Thercafter, hauséjs. -imjL:1t~ ..
and the peeple: haw: cempiairfiesfd
poultry farm is creating v
Based on the said initiated
against the petsstionehn 2003-.04 under
Section 133 <;f'~t,1_1e Final
order Q9 petitioner by the
03/2005. Questioning
the filed (§r1m' inal Revision
Petition the Fast Tract Court-111,
to be dismissed on 21/03/2006.
_ approached the High Court by filing
in’ a’ No.2863/2006 undar Section 482 of
thé ‘of Criminal Prwedure que$ti0ning the arders
A X: “$3.6 Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Fast Track
III, Hospet. Tha said petition alse came to be
dismissed on 17/96/2008. Pursuant to the order of
§
Fx/T?
4
this Court, the impugned notice is
petitioner to 511311: the poultry farm,
4. From the above,– cléar *ti”1at.Vt1§§:”-zmfice is. . ‘
issued cmly to cxecutg the;V-f§¢1e%rS–»..pas;S€d,,fby_.ffi1¢ Sub-
Divisienal Mag’strat<;; '% AA.'(;3é.~"L1I't-Iii and this
Court in Pe:i£i§gi[:2$§é;2o0e;;
* 3}fi11e« ::j;1'n¢t§<§éiIigS""'t:)"§ shift the poumy farm
havevvvstafzteti Aiready 5 years have
e1a_p$ed. -~ sgjitfififif same, 616 petiti0I3_.er has not
A thgj "farm and Consequenfly the health of
§§f'_f;ht: said icxzality is being spoilt day by day.
A1:;Vview':)f. tha abeve, no interference is called for in this
writ .}f;§éi~,tj.tic1+3'3. inasmuch as the notiee is issued only for
' V. :¢§§§3cutn1g' ' the orders passed by the Sub-DivisieI1al
Magstiate in MAG No.48/2803-04 as confirmed by the
Fast Track Court–~II1, Hespet in Criminal Revision
H
5
Petition No.43] 2005 and this Court in
No.2863/2006. Therefere, writ petition is—.4′:1:ia})l’é£f§:’:h5£€jr
dismissed.
Accordingiy, the is V”* f~ii5vsf£-:ver,”‘
the petitioner is «e>I1,ca’iik1bV1:t1_tf’1?i’.’a:-_ day,
to shift the poultry ” ciear that no
further of; under any
circlamstaiicg” V ” ” ‘ :’
Sd/-
JUDGE