High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri B H Hanumanthaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri B H Hanumanthaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2010
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna


DU
5-‘

IN Ty:.HzaH saga? GF.KARfi§flAKA AT BANGALQRE
SETED $325 rEx.?” may GE Navflmasa 2029
PRESE§T

mgr aaN’aLE.MR.JusrIc£ V G sA3aAazrf¢
AND . ‘»’ =’

my? HoN<5LE.MRsJvsrIcg B v.mAsAgA$$fi§}f};f_

W.P.Nb:34343f2Q1fl {S x3i?"§ ,Hf;V=

SRI B H HAHUMANTHfiIAR ";j= *.'**
{HRGHGLE nxscazagn IR TEE asngg

as Hafl§MANTHA§P&} x 7 *u%"=
si0.LArE HAnUMaIAH**;.*

AGED ABSUT 54 yaaas *, .1' 1n
wagxxws As A3311 a§?Is3gVQ»_

PWB DE¥ISI$N g.' *. ;~= =A «*»m.

xANn¥A~-.EE"~*i= ' -f t*«W*5 … PETITEGNER

(By Sri s ?i5AtA $a§§ggR, SENIGR CGUNSEL EOE
'H{a,aAHGamnrHA S JQIS gsaaaxamas}

'f«.i' ééA:£a0E KARRATAKA

"_EE§pa3 ::s SECRETARY
V «fiERA3T$ENT or Ezmafias
_ vzpaaaa sevnna
'* BANG§LeRE~56a G01

4 TH CGNTRQLLER 6? STATE accauxws
f;€m FLOGR, cnuvmzy eaavax
' naxaaoas-age cog

.m

3 Tfifi STATE Of KERKATAKE
EEP BY SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ¥BLIC WORKS, PGRTS
RED INLAND TRANSPQRT

hi

Vlbflfififi 3GUDHh
BANGALQRE*56§ 091

4 HE CHIEF KBGZNEER
(COEM§NICATIONS & EUZLDERGS}

K R CIRCLE
BANGfiLORE"5$Q 099

5 am *3 saEENIvAsAm:a:rI~z':, HAJOR. __ _ .
AC3COL?N'I'B svygmnmmanqy

RDFR PRQJECT DIVISIGR J
M?S8RE 1

6 THE EXECUTIVE KHs::.:~'rE;$R V =_
FETBLIC woaxs sgvaammafis I3I'«.7I'sEQ:sI
2«zANnm—–572. 403. zmsaamfims

{By 3m: ._AG1a.g

TI-IIS my EILVEE}v tI;~1:c3:a1?,'V.__?5;1§;1f:}$.2;ES 226 5 22';
as THE: <;o1~;5*3:_*I§U*x*xr;:ra(.66QE!20iO fixated

W2O.lG.2Q10, wherein, the Tribunal has passed

identical ands: declining the prayer far
granting stay at the ataga sf isauing nmtice
to the respandanta and has diraatafi that all

apylicatiens and similar c¢nne¢ted

applications shculd ha pasted after $éfifii¢§ af~

notice. Petitianar harain_mfileé””agplicatian”

befare the Karnataka Admifiia:1atfve*Trififinéig

hsing aggrieved by tié=_améndfien: é§.W5n5& %R ”

Rules and th$3 cens#§uen§iai’u_9p£e: cf
repatriatian af thaTpsfifii3fié§{ An appliaatian
for stay ia IT,i,.lec§=”‘Vaii::$i5;;:v’petition. In
ail tha«§§§i§fiati§ns £fla~iaarnaé Tribunal by
marfi.-..:ea%%2iofij:mg%1%:; “after: ccsnzaidering the

aant9nti¢fi-afigthékfiounsal appearing for tha

“Va ax%i&$ Obsefvaéwas fellows:-
._F _ __ _

j A }%f§§&ergf$r9, at thifi stage, we
‘N fié$2;fié ta gxant stgy.

-$.15: thaasa app.Iic&t.ia3’zs and

usfifiilar conneatsd gpplicatians after

V’V.serv1ce of natiaa.’

*, fiherafara, at this stage, we aealine ta grant

stay.

2. List the applications and ather
similar aonnected applications after segvice

af natica.

3. Learned Seniar Counael &nfiéari”_ fdauflx

the petitienex aubitted that fihéL§2éef=s£ tb§

respandent may ha ¢la;ifiéfi ‘parmi:£§fig: Ehé’,

petitioner ts puxsue théffipplifiaéiéfi fie: stay
after ssviae éfiT-ndt;aé, fihi¢h shali be
csnsidezed igdependéfi$ly,p “‘

4. ;”Ifi. %ig¢’ §§,_fihe limited aubmisaion
mada.by–§hfi.i@arh§d’Q§ni3k Caunfial appaaxing
far 1:13:15″ having regard. tn tha

fact t§§: th§ TriEufial at the ataga cf issuing

*V, mqfiicfiitfi tfié»xeapondents faand that n9 stay

,’¢dulfi, *Befi~_granted withant haariag the

iaépandefitfi, it is open to the petitioner ta

‘ »pu:suég his appliaatien fer atay after the

A f’fi#§§odants are served and the said

\R%nfi éwplication shall be canaidered indgpendently

by the Trihunal.

5. Aaaaxdingly, under thasa
observations ayplications and writ petitign

are dismigsed.

qp*