High Court Karnataka High Court

Jyoti Dall Industries vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Jyoti Dall Industries vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


. ” R1;’:;:v,a;LL :NDU§°i*mEs

.’ {.332 snz. 53 M CHANQRASHEKAR}

*3.

III THE HIGH COERT OF KARRIATAKA;
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE mm my GP?’ _
EEFQRE__m_’
THE HCWBLE MR.J¥_§S’i’ICE Régm
WP. $10,82582~826814_{v2QO§”(G§ai– :
BETWEEN: V AT 1.

3. JYO’I’§ DA:,£,,1Nm;s*;*1cz1B:s–.% if; _ –
REP, ITS PROi”~’R3.E’I’OR i

MO}-EB. AMJAD AHMEE) ,§s;;{> .&HMEB MEYAN
AGE: 35 ‘$553,… C_’rC(3::_I’:3L§SI.§\E 153$ ._ f
R/O H.N.Cg5~$j’:Q N¥§fiR:.RAN.GEEI€ I’V§;AS.J§D
M0M;N’PU:?.;x, “<}t;i1,Biz§f2_GA.._ V. " '
RM;"i)ALL:V§NSi;?'3T'RIE-S "

REP. gY1'1''3VPRQ?R;ET.§3R ;

RA2§_1U§}D'§N I\t§A£:3&§{)()!i) " __

AGEE .35 YRSv.OC'gC: miszfiass

R10 I-I<3¢;:~:.%z~1<2£32;?.24,.~BILALABAI3
éZ§UL_BAR{iA_ '-

gm?

..:2..’~;3’a:1*P$ PRGPRIETOR
AB.!Z}U_L’R2§HE1EM S/9 Aamm RAUE?

–A ‘ue’KC§E:’ :30 YRS occ: STUDENT
.._R/C3. H.N.-0..5~=?0/ 1, KBARI
‘M0’-MINPURA, GULBARGA

Pt ?El”i’E’£’IG§¥ERS

jikmwmw

1
5%

‘K

-3,

GRDER

The firs”: petitjonai’ Wilfifl aiiotteci plot A’ %
afiotmem: latter dated 17.€=§.;2€}t’}8, ”

No.74Pi t0 the 2nd pemiener 1::§’}(i:f’?.:3;’ .

dated 25.08.2008, A11nexI.1fi3_~_~ B 1; V pgggt
aligttefi to the 3rd petitionar dated
1′?’.O9.:2GO8, A1mexLn*{;{§a’2′,’ 1 acre
Na.ne:i0Q:*-Kesartagi V.’ were
subjected price of
mm and Rs.5,00{)/–

being tstaling to Rs. 1,153,000/-
and théé ~ on or before

16,0 :’~§;.;?)3’G’§, 22%..:>;,’2Mo09; and 15.03.2m9 respectiveiy, by

iiateci 17.09.2003, 2a.3s.20os and
__1£§s§ectiv5ly. The petitioxzars having met
V VV _ paid””fhgv-figjéhce of §«3s.4,3i2,f}{“}{}/– were visited with tbs

.§ra:¥,r:::_:*s o f evex1 {Eats §.2.5.2G€}*9, fi;13;1exur&s~=A, A} & A2,

§ gig
‘ K’?

.,.4A.’…N._,~,m,.x.wm,.»_.w,,/ssé

A-

cancaiiing the afiotmem: and forfeiting the m0n¢y___ in

deposit. Hence, these writ petitions.

2. In almosst identical circumstances, thf: —

in Cihamanlai Singal Vs.

Authority and and Others rep<}:*t.edj'vi:{'{i2009}»',?s}.SE33" 'V

held that the faiiure to conwi"§3£i§§:"»Wjtl3
suipzllated in tbs ralevént clgiiggg Zetter,
the canceliatiorl Vof a£z°j:CiAA-'.If§;:?feitu1*e of the
aarns:-.:st manzatgf ' was valid'
Applying J the facts of this
case, V 131$ petitioner having
admittevvfiiiyfi, " V with the '£31113 and

condifiaus of V.paym61*;t, bf the provisional cast of the

'£a1.1f1v'&",V.xk?ii;i3ii1A~.«the stipulated, cazmai; be heard to

e;oI3.Tt_.:e1ATi¢;1..V'§;r§;;Vii3jtiz:§=:1 of principiea 0f Ilatural justice in not

' -. V "tbs; Lalieiafziérxts. _

exiendiggg é:9: 0p;3ort£113it;,* Gf hearing before tzanceifing

3. The petitiang am devoid merit and are accordifi-gly

r&j<::{tted. in the event, fhfi .4
applications for ailotnlent of 'V
pfiitiazzers may make appBca{i0L;1§ma'§§{i
eligible, there is I10 reason to»b_e1iex;(-;.. 'V
mot cansider tkzet petitioners' S