Savithri Amma vs The Secretary on 18 January, 2010

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18?" DAY OF JANUARY, :0
BEFORE 'I   "

THE HDNELE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B.'    I 

WRIT PETITION NO. 1022   1 L.G:}T ' 

BETWEEN:

MRS SAVETHRI AMMA
W/O SHAM JOSHI _

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

R/AT BELLARE VILLAGE _ 

SULLIA TALUK 

D.K. DISTRICT    --  "  1 I '
(BENEFIT OF SENIOR mzEN NO'Tj_VC1,AI§VIED)

 ' ' ' '       ._   

(BY  "ADV. FOR M /S.L.EX JUSTICA]

AND:

 1.  SVECRETARYV

_  GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
_ * ~ _ E DEPARTMENT
 V1.Di<1AMA.s.DUDEA
-- A '-1.TDR.AN;B:s3DKAR VEEDHI
 BANGALORE ~ 560001

    COMMISSIONER

A ' I OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

I = ._ MANGALDRE D.K. DISTRICT 575 001

 35 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PUTIUR, [).K. 574 201
 RESPONDENTS

[BY SR1 R.KUI\/IAR, HCGI3}

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AR’I’ICLi*2S”–226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRA§’IN:’C«.._’FO

QUASH THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT PASSED/IssI_3E_D’.:I3_Y
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT N:3–.2 .I_IfE?REI’fI\I–I 0* A
D’I’.28.10.2009 FILED AS ANNEX~A TO THE .WRiT._PEfI*ITION’ I. .0
AND ALSO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISsI.IED’4_BYv.fI’IIE–I4
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RES=POI\IDI:NT,No..3 I’aEREwII$II
DT.I6.I2.2009 FILED AS Ai~.INEX~B,C,’ ‘AND

. RESPECTIVELY. * w ‘ ” .2

TIIIS PETITION CO1V[IN_C_:tvV:O:_N”~.VFOR.’PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE_ ‘ FICOIIRT MADE THE
FOLLOWING: I –

‘;…………………_._._….j_.___

The» faised the Challenge to the
Comma-nicattiehfliiated: issued by the Deputy

COmmissiOI1er’Seffiee the Assistant COmmisSiO1:1er’S

;»_.,f§al.1ingh the latter to hold the

L_’e11Iju’iIfyI/simfestigation On priority basis and Submit an

eIa10’0rate.”I9e}3}Ort thereon, as it is a Case of 1ar1d–

“..,grabbi1f1g; Based on the said Communication, the

V”–‘Assis:ant Commissioner has issued the three Show

__c__ause notices. all dated 16.12.2009 (AnneXure~’B’, ‘C’

and ‘D’} Calling upon the

etitioner as to Why the iand

grant in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled.

She is given 15 days’ time to submit her exp1anatio’n,é5_vV

2. Sri Srihari, the learned couns__eli. appeparif1gi–

for the petitioner submits that theione mid’ Vthe ll

Communication at Annexure–A “‘anll’*iinmistaRa}i5le.

impression that the Revenue’-.authoritie.s1’ha&fe””‘already”‘V

decided the issue against t}1’e-.p’etitioner;l’As they have
come to the biased llpre¥icon’c1ulsion,l” –.he prays for

interference of Courtlin the’~;’matter.d

learned High Court
Government’ that the petitioner is only

put on showilcauvse “notices. Instead of submitting the

V. reply theypshovyfllclause notices, she has rushed to this

the Government Pleader prays for the

dismissal this petition.

Z The ends of justice would be met by my

id ‘AAdi’1*ecting the petitioner to submit the reply to the

l impugned show cause notices.

95%

4

5. The respondent No.3 shall afford reasonable

opportunities to the petitioner’s side to put acrolsspits

case and hold the enquiry in accordance wit’r1–]_faw__” ar_._1d~.

pass appropriate orders thereon. . the».

respondent No.3 shall hold the énqiaiiryl

the order of his higher auth_orit}Vf’Anamely;:’u’h’the_i§)ejpdtydd:>

Commissioner that it is the :of.iand¥’grahbi1i}g.

6. The petition disposedit¢§3f’:according1y. No

order as to costs’.