IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.364 if2G08 I m THE HIGH COURT as KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATE!) THIS THE 22"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER. ms HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.:=A*nL. ' wnrrpmrrxox N'o.3641 o1='~zoa8 BETWEEN: '' mus c B R caaoup REP av :73 PROP ea; c RAJESH 5:0. c B mo-~ men ABOUT 30 YEARS * ' _ occ: BUSINESS. RIAT :40. 550, 312:) Mm, gm cnoss, J P NAGARHII PHASE ' " V - . ._ BANGALORE -73. " _ V . ~-- ' V A V _ ._ u =*- '"}I','.;VPETeTaoNER (By an : K M Acivocgafifi }. 'V AND 1 KARNATAKA S?ATE F£NAtd_ClAL c:.oRPoRA*noN K_C.?,C."3HA\s'AN . ~ NO.1f1",1}~£iMbAAiAH ROAD NEAR CONTG!~lMENT'--.RAiLWAY S'¥''AT£C}N ; BANGALORE 52 *'1REP'BY B.S. SWREESHA, DEPUTY GENERAL ' MRNAGER (R-1) _ _ _ . .. RESPONDENT
(By sis; s G’ muagxa, ADVOCATE)
T}-i¥$A:WRiT PETITQON IS-FILED UNDER ARTFCLES 36 AND 227 OF
,.’TfHE;’ 3.QNST£TUTION CF mom. PRAYING TO I-S$tJE A warr camera on
“DI¥’?.EC'{.i{)!\l em ‘ms NATURE OF MANCIAMUS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT
_ T0 ‘CONSIDER me To D£SPOSE or THE ANNEXUREF AS
EXFED1TiOU$LY AS mssaaw.
THES WRIT PETINON COEMNG ON FOR PRELIWNARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.36d UCZIEO8
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIEA AT’ BANGALQRE W.P.N0.3641f2G03
OEDER
Petitioner in this petition is a Ccarnpany represented
by its Proprietar. Petitioner has sought for a
against the respendent to consider and bf;
representation dated 27*” N§y§fhber.« Wjidwe ‘*
Annexure F as expeditiousiy as .. 3 A
2. The only grievancéb “pa-etitiA¢.$r°sag”
writ petition is that, petéfianer £153: tation
be-fare the resmndent — to pay a
sum of at the rate of 14%
per ann{jin¥ ‘oh fi1§é”t§1at, flue same has not been
paid $17 ~fa r. ‘Si§j;§e.vfl1te§V’r駒s:pondent has neither repiied to
111 “paid in pursuance of the said
herein feit necessitated to
V «V writ petition, seeking consideration of
— k [ 1;§we ksaifi xfépfwentation.
IN THE HIGH COURT 0?’ KARNATAKA AT BAZNGALORE W,P,No,364l.»’2(K)8
oz THE HIGH COURT 0}? A1′ A1′ 3 GALORE w,1>.Ne.364;1:zcos
3
3. l have heard learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and learned oounsel appearing for
– Corporation.
4. Learned oounsel appezégringéfor
Corporation submitted .
grievance, it can aiwaye the
Court, where the market
5- available on
record, what’ has, in fact,
submit1j’e’d”ii’é:V..: 27″‘ November 2007
vide Aohefitore representation is neither
as on date. Keeping the said
ifi aoeyéhee and not oonsidering the
not justifiabie.
‘Tfiefefore, wifirxout expressing any opinion on
flfm wee, it would suffice for this Court, if
–‘ efioropriate direction is issuw to rmpondent to oonsider
IN THE }i}(3H COURT OF KJKRNATAKA AT BANGALORE W’.F.No.364lf2(§G8
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P,No.3641?2008
4
the repraaentafion dated 27*” Ncvernber 2007 vide
Annexure F and dispese of fire same, in acoordancg
law.
‘7. Having regard to the facts_and_ u ” ‘V
the case, as sated above, fi\e:”:wri,t_ ‘ 1;;
petitioner is disposed of with’d..:§iérdct’i6’r2’V:tow to
consider the represeritaijon 2607
vide Annexure F and in accmdance
wiflw law, as any rate, not
later than of receipt af 2 copy
of this and disposed of.
Sci]-
Iudge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ‘sV.P.N0.364lf2€)(}8