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