' :« _ £xSS;sTANT COMMISSIONER
V . 2 ""TAI~iA.si3;i:>A£e
_ SR1 SIDDEGOWDA s/0. CHIKKAEOREGOWDA
,1-
as THE man coum' or mnuxruu. AT 2 V
namn THIS THE 71%} DAY or JULY pi " _ "
THE Hozrnnz: me. Jusrxcifi. :1;%.'fs;3{oiiA1m},; if A '
W.P.Ne.52 101
BE_.__'£:___WE§I£ _ .
1 SR1 Gavieowm s;*<3.%cHofmRIGGw'v:}A%
AGEEDESSYEARS
R,-*0 M SHETTAHALLL. A
s£21RANGARa:T":?gNA;_ ('mLu1q Z
MANDYA ;2:»1si«;7z1<?T 3 -
2 SR} JA"~fAR~E's3;OW'DA SA:-v.. C--s§.®TAR'IGowDA
AGED56.YEé;?_?S
R/OM 'sH:m "i_:a;Ar_.Lz.m _
SIEIRANGAI? JIfI'ANA' gm-;_ _ --
Mgrmya ;-3;s'1'*R:{:'1'» PETYFIONEFES
{BY 5121 K A .§1}LANf)R£$.SHE}:iARA, ADV.)
" ~PA?iDAVfifPi}--RA
PAM{}$VA.PtIf€A (TA)
'=MAN{)--'§5 (12:-3
sm:Rz:.1xr<:;APA1*rANA TALUK
.. , M.AN:3YA DIS"I'R£C"i'
we: M SI~--§I§'I"I'Ai-IALLI (V)
sR:RANC2APAT'rAm (TA)
MANDYA DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
(BY SFEI T FIJTTASWAMY, ADV, FQR R3;
SR! R KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 85 R2?
J»
‘V
THIS WRIT ¥’ETI’I’iON FILED UNDER ARTIcLI::::i”‘225_’ag: _
OF THE CONSTI’E’U’I’ION ore’ IN§iA PRAYING TO–;(}_UA-S}~ie-
oremzre arr, 3;3.:1.2oos PASSED 3*: THE ;>:~z;>._12’eS1=.’rs:;:>§;:~:*r’ 1, ”
TRUE COPY OF’ WHICH IS PRODUCEDJAT.ANN£3XU¥?E«g;, ‘
‘f’HiS WRIT PE’I’I’}’ION CQMING ONA.f%’0ié».’P1:2§i’1,:i$}iiis:’Ai%i+*.1
HEARING IN ‘S’ GROUP, “ms DAY, *raa:.v’c0uRfs, MADE ‘:fI*1-‘£5:
FOLLOWING: .
0 R 1}-
Respondent Nos. have
remained mrepreseiited. ” the learned
Govemment them and file
memo of from today.
2. The this Court seeking for
issuanceef ei’ to quash the order dated
V 3/ 5.”1.;1′.’2£!O8 b3} the second respondent which is
évixzmexure-A. The further relief for issuance
df directing the first respondent to
V VV . consider application 1’01” stay has been sought.
v._ fj.’haye heard the learned counsel for the pariiies
V. pemsed the appeal papers. The short; point for
:.”considerat:ion in this writ petition is only with regard to
J
the second prayer which has been made in the.
petition. I say 80 in View of the fact that ~
the petitioners have sought for qeashmg”ot”ift!1e~::QrderV’4 ” ” 2
dated 3/5.11.2008 passed
Srirangapatna which is impugriesi at *
against the said order, the admittedly
before the fimt responéient fitietzance of
the petitioners the along with
the appeal an
application. .w . “the order imp:.1g1ed
therein by the Tatlsildar has
aiso been -_Sinee.e.”-~the said application has not
})eeI3_.’*’eo1;_$id.ereo” “a:”1:i….c1isp-osed of one way or the other,
are before this CouI1:. in that
eireumstanee, eince the order at Annexure~A has been
_ ‘q_uesm’ened;_ before the first rwpondent, the gent of first
‘fjraxyVef*~tmade before this Court does not arise.
‘:’_4’4-.~-V: Insofar as the second prayer made by the
3 xpetitioners is concerned, it is needless to mention that
t
4
-4-
when a grievance is made and there is a statupory
appeal provided and the same is filed by A4
remedy available under the provision, it wouicl ”
open for the parties to seek V’
oltiers. In such circumstances, it is-efor ti’Io+.a1;thoi*ityn”‘
concerned to consider the
of the same one way or ghe éflieeeagglieved
party could agitate f11ItI”1′{i:i’.i_if’1 if they are
advised to do At tliie interim orders
are ‘ti1e.ii3etter is not precipitated
during pen appeal. Hence, the first
respondent not in not considering and
‘of the epplication for interim order one
could not have just proceeded with
thei mattfei’ keeping the appiieation pending. The
is thezefore granted to that extent and a
e.€ii:fee*;io12 is issued to the first respondent to consider
” appiication filed by the petitioners seeking’ for
3 ‘ A’ interim order on its merits. The said application shali be
.53.
disposed of by the first respondent within 8&7 V.
two Weeks from the date of production of ”
ofthis order. % A
In terms of the above, me ‘V L’
of. No order as to costs. xthe ‘V
learned Government :4 fsnhwim
to the firs’: respondent. 1
Iudge