Sri. Ravishankar Sherigar vs The Secretary on 29 July, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT SANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29?" DAY OF" JULY 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. IOSTICE ASIIOK S. HINCHIGERI  -- 
WRIT PETITION No. 22658 of 20:0 (My)  j; 1'
BETWEEN: A 1'
SRI RAvISHANI1 DISTRICT  V   .._...I._R-ETLITIONER '

(BY SRI L_TGOI>_.AL, AADv§OCA'TEV)"=$R.._I '  '
AND;      ' 

THE SECRETARY   
REGIONAL TRANSPORTAOTTHORITT, 

LJDLJPI  RESPONDENT

(E9! S-RI K' [Yl'S._|EII_VA.YOC3ESWAMY, HCGR)

THIS WRIT RET~IT'I'ONV[IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CC:fI\ISTITUTIONV_ OF INDIA ERAYING TO DIRECT THE
RES-RO..NDEN:T<TQ._AS_SIGN"TIIE--.«T"IMINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
DIRECTION GIVEN E5Y._THE RTA UDUPI AS PER RESOLUTION DATED
O6.O9--..2'O<}6"--.SER,IAL.-.No...I6S IN SUBJECT No.1I3/O6-O7 DECISION

 PRONOUNCED"ON'"3i.O:'I-.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

 THIS.._wRIT.E:E¢TI'TION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HG. THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

‘C=_CTSrfi K.M.STNvayogNaNan1y, the learned High Court
Eefiofenmnent Meader is dkecuxi to take nouce for the

CreSpOndent

H3 H.

2. Heard Sri L.T.GODai, the iearned counsei for the

petitioner and Sri Sri i<.M.Shivay0giswamy, the iearned E-iigh,..'4'_»

Court Government Pieader for the respondent.

3. The petitioner’s grievance is that the tirr*ii.ngj~:§_’_’ai”e I

assigned pursuant to the Resolutionhvidated
(Annexure–A) passed by the Regienai T_raVVnsp0*:=t AtJ’t”har_iAtyA_,,:§

Udupi

4. This petition is dis;_pp’sfed’ ofidirect’i’ng”the:7*r~esspbndent to
consider the petitioners or the timings
within six weei<s th_e.prpducti0n of the Certified

copy of t0day's"'ord'er. '

No order as to cp"s*tS.-V. …..