IN THE' HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG} XLORE
DATED THIS 'THE 19:11 DAY 0;? L'
BEFORE % k V
THE HONBLE Mr. JUsT:{bié:'AJrr'AJ ' .
WRIT PETITION N0'.;1'€)?143'----¥;_3'I?--2§__
BETWEEN:
F'.N.Venkat;esh, V V
C/<3 Shankar Rice Mill; §
Aged about 48 years, ._ *
Paddy and R1cc_Mem,ha:1_t:3, V _
Ko11ega1--57 1_44}{3~-,_ _,
Cha1narajHé%TgaI;1iTffiistricté% ...f'ETITIONER
(Sri .. V'
AND:
1. The State '
{Sri I-I.K.Basa¥araj, I-ICEGP fer R21 and R2; Sri
H.i{.Thi;:t1meg0wda, Adv. far I123)
cozxstrncted the shed within one year from the: ci'a.te of
ailotment. It appears, the thiz'-:31 respondent ;i'1a§°f
the site pursuant to the order C1E”;tIT!Eif 1 _:
Questimaing the said forfeiturelfhis.,£§f1iii€’péfitioi*1
4. When the matter» ‘takeli zip’, ‘C(;1iI1S€.’J
appearing for the pet,§tiQn:2I””‘a;9 .:’!1?éH_’as At hE:’~re’$pondents
submit that the subje’cff.’Ii1afE;ér »__writ petition is
covereci by of a batch of writ
pe1:it:ioI::s.;’ ‘
matters, the impugiled
foI’feit1A: r«3Ln€)rd e’r”ié$a:1d the matter is rexnitted to
t1’1¢_;f&g5x’ gr*i4c1:1.f:1j1*zaV_1Viérofizice Marketing Committee for frash
in the prasent case, the impugnrszd oréer
But however, the question sf
” $716 matter to the third respendent and
éi§;r:r-“:_¢:tif:’gT ‘sham to reconsider the case of the petitioner
vmuld be at: axarcise in futiiity. Indeed, in
w’i’§éeni:ica1 cases, I have mjled that if some time is granted
{:3 the aiiattee ta put up corzsunctien and if the said
consfinefion is 1101’; put up Withizl the said fime li11r2.ii:, the