High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramu B Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ramu B Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
:11 mm men 000121 or ff}:   .

cmcurr annex-I A'1'Wl3§iAR§€fA§:"_': >   A  
DATED THIS ms 9"!    
mmkgfi  A V.  V %    ',
THE HGIPBLE MR.JU8TICF.{I4i:T§iI1§H 

 

wan pE1~11'ra"j;§r«-1so.L1'_.k:;o'9j*;¥< ofzoos (942231
wrwmn: TL   "

 

RAMU B. PAir1L-.___i*  g 

S/O BASAPRAISHU-_"PAT'fL  
AGE:39 YEAf?7S "' - ,    '
OCCUPATIC}l§:''-!£3)VOCA'§fE' "  
R/O JAN(§ATliI-IAL':9§ % '- 
TQ: HUKKERI   - -
DIST: 13£;Lc;A%uM     ...Pm'monER

(n*§La!§.t.-  13. mum, ADV)
    ''''' 

--......u--.,-..__.

 A jg»   MATE or KARNATAKA

 * REERESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
-  m3;iw;R:=MENT op LAW JUSTICE
 A!*3'D_ HUMAN RIGHTS
% WDHANA soumm
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

A 'A  BANGALORE -- 559001

.'  ':2;  THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BELGAUM DISTRICT'
BELGAUM

3, BASAVARAJ V. HUNDEKAR

AQVO GATE



R/O 140.2272
"VIRUPAKSHA KRUPA"
BAZAR ROAD
HUKKERI

mgr: BELGAUM Q   * u

{av 3121. R.K.HA'I"I'I, Hcefimn F..i'T.s,s,.'1¢3'3§"3.'2"[ji~M..¢ 

THIS mrrrrron IS l"+'ILEB__UNI5IE}?"ARTEC1J§}$.,22(§ Am
227 0? THE C()NS'l'ITU'I'lON 'EEFVLNDIA PRAYI'f{IG"TO"QUASH

THE ORDER BEARING No.LA'/V«1,V12;L.AGi2o08 DATED 04-
03-2009 PASSED BY ma Ff!R$_:RESP0NDEN'l'V-'WHICH IS
PRODUCED AND MARKED As £§.!§NE_XURE~E.

THES PErrr1oN%VVMcoM:1§GfV' ciwféicié PRELIMENARY
HEARING THIS i)_AY, ffHEC'4Z.'-URT--.MA'D';E- THE FOLLOWING:

   respondent No.3 as the

Additifinafl for Civil Court (Sr. D11.)

Hukkcri “aunt-.x1:1:e-‘Ei’ is called in question. in this writ

_____

‘]__P.é-titioner herein is also one of the

-c’ap1:>”li~:’,atr;;_f;sV/ aspirants for the said post. The names of the

VA :~ ” izéfitianer as well as respondent No.3 along with twa others

§§’£2I’!(;’.’: recommzmdcd by the District Judge to the State

u ‘Government for appoiniment. Though, inifially the name of

Kw

the petitioner is recommended by the law
Government has appointed respondent No.3. u E

3. It is the prerogative

choose its advocate. Thetttyetitioner éioesfioo the”.

wisdom of the Sate Go\fV:eI:o;’::z;e::tVL of “appoifitment of
respondent No.3 as the Advocate. The
petitioner also catlnotiforeefthe’ to appoint

him. In VW does not find any

” order. petition fails.

V’afI;itV:f’etifio§§i’Aie’gIism. heed.

Sd/-‘
JUDGE