High Court Karnataka High Court

Karnataka State Road Transport … vs K S Bhavanishankar on 16 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport … vs K S Bhavanishankar on 16 July, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
3% THE HEGH COUPJT OF i~iARNA'T'AKA AT BAN{}ALf}'"R-E

 

DATEX) 'FI~iiS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY :2Q_Q9{  

BEFORE

'THE HGWBLEZ MR.JUsTIc£;éLiB:4Ai:;H .B.§}é;:'i>_:   

mvmw gmmon 39;; $11 goo<.2..  - . 2 "

IN W.P.HQ.221£'%[i'eQ08{L~Ks3RTf;}"  %

BETW SEN:

KARNATAKA STATE RCBAD '§*R£';NS1?OE:T.C£}§2E'C;2RA'I'ION
CEiNTR§;LOFFiCES,E~i:HiROAS5_'   
SHAN'E'HINA{}AR, BANGALOR_E--iE3f§Q :32':

BYITS E\e1ANAG{NG4'i:}I3%.ECTOR,"V~: ' *

NQW REP.E1Y:Ts:'   2:  
<:}~:1I3:§«' LAW <31_1?F§:?.,E;'?;..V_V__«.'. '~     '  PETETEQNEZR

(By Sr';L=(3QYEE€§Rg3§;_3:,;3§'kf.)=  ~  V'
RN13:

K S BymaIAN1S'§iAi§:'~:::;.ia A

 3,19 1/::,cf». E5&TYAN2*'aR..5Y&N£;,
 "fis,GE'§3. £=;Bf31U'1'?.4? YE£:§"'<'*S*;'
' . CCEQK, 1<:5s'§<::';:::._. CANTEEN,

' KG :.,A'":;' 1E<iSE%"i"*'i3T'~D_.iV'\fE SEOESIAL EN'E'

{R§S.POii@E?§51" $ERVED)

 V' ., " '  Reviaw Patiiion filed 11,! Q 4'? Rifle 1 <:1f{iiPC, praying fer
"  xgéziof the Qrder dated 9/2/2939 passed in WP i'%0,2212,/$8 an

K   fila cf the i~£0n'"£3is:: iiigh Cauri 0f Kazzzataka, Bangalare.

This Raview Petvitian comixlg on £32' adfnissien this day,

we Czmrt mafia tha faliawingz



_,'3
L

O D E R
Petitioner ---~ Corporation has seught for xtview ctf t.1fi4E:--.{3IIie:r

dated 9:5 February 2099 passed in W.P.No.2212[2GQ§§. '   ~

2. Re$p0nde11t had filed the above writ .V9:fAfi§jo1:1 .:~.;f.;ie;?tzifQ"b 

seekring diII:c1::i0z1 to consifier his rt3pr%sE::;bf£::;i511Z#:J'I;2_j  

produced at Axznexurawii in ih-5_. said s%¢1fii'--;}€titi;§z1A.A  '"T11is'1--.{§{::}Qri..L

aftm" hearing the counsel for bot1i"'Lt1Tie. pa;"i:iE:*s_,V iSF%:i1&(i".:;*;1VV{V'ViViI'i3Cti011V
to the Corgyoration ts V ;'f;QBSi(k§.2£"'  V' '1i%.:_pz"esciii;é1ti£):1 ef the

respondent.

3. New revic%*;*a%:. g$’ctit::i§:r1g f17,$f3{‘i:.. fi:t§££?.{‘(1T§£II bfingng it to my

notice t3is{t’, ” ‘héév filed w.P,Nes.41o35 to
41G53[2Oi{.}’2V &s*h%:rei51i”:§V’d:[i:?§§fioti is sought for abscarpiicm 0f the

petit:io;1¢1’_ in aéicgitiaizcavwifh Annexmée-B, an order passed in

‘V ‘£:oA 2i2′}”98/ 3.998. Learned Counsel far tbs
that, the Divifiion Bane}: of this Court
con§i:i%3;§ng_ALi;é:’?..Vg,¥£iévanse of the §ct:£fi0I1er has dismissed the Writ

6.}i3§€:a1,” the order sf we Eeazned Single Judge,
tlgt, the respondent suppressing the sajfi maienlal

___”‘”§T.:§’afé.:~e this Court haé filsefi £116: Writ pafificn,

4. it appears that, Whefl {ha writ petfifion was iiisyoseé mi;

neiflaer the Cmiporatien 1103:’ £316 pefifisner margin (i’E$;3OI1(i€I1{

éafi

‘-

;-.

hemin) had bmuglxt to my Izofice as regard to: the gimilar matter
being fiisposzzd {)f by this Cialzrf; in Writ Appeal N0.2§Q§${2GG5.
Fmm para~3 0f the order of the Division B€;:1c.E1 it is
the relief sought for by the :t:sp0;ude11t a
the: order passed by this Cfoufi’. in
Similar prayer was aisa made befo:a:;’A:&i1is;’_”‘C<;§'u1Ai;._1
same, ildere is sugsprwsion (inf .t;¢ct:
and when there is a Divisian #1213: them is

justificatian to revziew th€—Qfflfir fiiatfjdh
According§3f,::&'the u is":afi}owi:d. The order

dated 9.:;2:i.12%{i619 AV;§;g_ssg&f'i1;jgzmrazo. :éé::;20s is recalled. and the

Writ Pc:::§cu’;s§c;.’22 §12£’A:2i?{)t?._:i5$’~diSmissed.

,, %%%%% sd/.

Judge