High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri D S Joshi S/O Late Shripad Joshi vs Sri C G Ram Mohan on 12 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri D S Joshi S/O Late Shripad Joshi vs Sri C G Ram Mohan on 12 December, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
Ff

1}} IE IIIGII COUR? 01? AT

AT BANGALORE WP.No.f~035 05 3993
:

{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 

nxma 1-ms mm 12"' am' or nmcsurmn, '' v V.

BEFORE

was Hoarsm ma. JUST'¢'£»~A»N.K,PF§'fi9€"" ff     %

 

BETWEEN;

'f

(Bysré: 9 3 Joan;  -  Pi':R§ari" )3   
AND:      . V 

SRi D 3 JOSH: SIG LATE SHRIPAE .s:;$s~2s_ V'
AGED ABOUT30YEARS__  _  
RIAT uo.1o7.a, 24TH cacss «

if BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR' 5 _ 
BANGA¥.ORE--560 009 J '

   .«;:;.."Pé9m:oNER

am £'t":*'¥m§4"?»€0HA':2:'--  - 

FATHER'S NA¥g!E_N6*T xM;3w;_~: T0 rag PETITIONER
AGED Amm savvmas *  

paws: INFGRMA1'K}¥éGFElGER"

AS~SiSTr't._NT {sENERAL.MA:~w.aER (LEGAL)
KARNATAKA srarapmancean coapowmow

2:1. mzM:.4A:AH RGAD, axons » 593 052

 ExEcuIsvE"b:R£cToR copemnowsy

K$RNATAKA. STATE FWANCIAL CORPORATION

_ .  ~.1{i m:ssMA;A:~£_RoAn
 _ ~ T3fi.:»:G;=.;,o.°¢E~V:_5e;~3%2
" _"-{;?«£?'f'ELLg!£T:E;§;U'fHORlTY)

A THE STATE.i'§NFORMATl0N ccwsssmea

MULTISTOREYEB BWLDING
H! Fir-303?, DR. BR AMEEDKAR BEEE4
BANG':'%£.ORE~56O W1

" 'sure SECRETARY

 wise HEGDE A
 FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN To PETR.

54 YEARS, ADVOCATE

134 iliiii-BK-§$=| £3£)L1¥i1'£)P'3é-A#€vNA'§3aMé-A4963'!-!A~N{--?A+.{~)4%4€ W-.+'.N&.5f¥R6 9?' -'2f3¥)8



 

March zaoa, inciuding the opinion furnished by 

respondent to KSFC and to award p_g:n«a'ii3'::.'..: 

contempiated under Sectien of v

information Act, 2005.

2. I have heard peti’t§:j_:ngf* — ‘paf’t”y+in~§§é?$a.nVVVea*1d

Zeamed sanding caungel ap;§_e:§i ?Aé:i_g’V~f9r .’re9,.§;’a:cA;n;:vif§er’zts 1
and 2- Corpcration. V A H u V a

3. Le;a;jne__ci iéfipearing for
rwpandentg. 1 regard to the
service fiS”i’£)!’m&f ccsunse! to the
responciieht’–f they communicated the

communicawfimfi da:fe;iVA1§?’§’.:.uF-‘ebruary 2007 Vida Annexura

_ gaéd’-vaff:¢a»s, has today submitted that the

=_woIfds__ “grefefifiianai services has found to be not

séfisféstéif’.”;£ja§%é been mentioned inacivertentiy and the

‘4 ggid sfateifiehi is withdrawn with regret. To substantiate

. ii§aA’§.*a:1§e, he has flied a memo along with a copy 0f the;

person wiflx copies to ail the concerned Deparanefats,

specificaliy stating that, in the ietter dated 1?” ”

2007, the words “as the professions! ‘

to be not satisfactory’ are deleted aiidfliey ;

of me ietter dated 17″‘ Febn1aVry-2f3O74″‘raV;fa*s:=xiVns. E

4. The statements 12111
December 2008 and the letter
dated 6″‘ in View
of the by the
:§5tgz;ndent — Corporation
dated 515-,’f3fl€?é??%§i§%€%i;::§E’Q§é:::’:i:;§eéring No.KSFClH.OIND-

345l2008–0£§ “t’:’.*:–“~ii1e cancerned Departments,

~ .3 fim writ petition flied by petitinner is

‘3’1.3_1’51″f f_ ‘:9. as having become infructuous.

V44 4/5”.

0/”