1
IN THE HIGH _' COURT. OF KARKQTAIKA
A1' BANGALORE %
Dated this the 27* day ofAugust, .A
mm Hownm an JUQTICE Ev
Kl). PADMAVATHI ' f . ~
D/O KRISHNA VENKATARARMSHETEY, '
TEACHERAGED ABOUTSOYEARS; : " "
NO. 214, ERGADAR'-GALL{,"" % * " .
vrrm, "£'EMP'LE_.ROAD«, %%%% H
DAVANAGERE'_e:--_$7'ifl90__1. PE'I'I'I'IONER
Reddyand
%%%% % _ } . S15. "G;N;, Advs.,)
1. THE COMMISSIONER
or mrausc 'ib!S"';--.'Ri}'vCT'i'ONS,
NRUPATHUBIGA Roma,
3 3Ay~;ce.~_.._1_,oRE 001.
~ ..'1'HE 'DEWN DIRECTOR
O'F..FUB'LJC.1hiS'I'RUCI?ONS,
. ---.i)AVAN_A.GE.RE DISTRICT,
' DAVA..h§,A§$ERE.
7.3, THE SECRETARY,
.. _ SREVE JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANA
'~ V 'JIDYA SAMSTHE (REGDJ,
' moon {AT 8: POST),
DAVANAGERE TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2
4. THE HEAD MASTER,
R. G. NANJAPPA RESIDENCE
men SCHOOL, RAMPURA,
DAVANAGERE :31s1*mc'r, _ « 14 1. '~ _
DAVANAGERE.
(By Smt. Asha. M. Kumbergcfimath, _ HCGP for R; as 532;
R4 is dé.-Jctcd Vidé court oxjder ., _ » T '
ms PE'i'I'I'!ON IS FILED UNDEi§'AIi:'TI.CLES '22t§ Arm'r2i2'? (5?
THE CONS'I'l'I'U'I'ION OF INDIA,xPR'AYING"!'0 DIRt3C'i'{'j'§iEH I-V91' AND V
23"' RESPONDENTS TO DISBURSE THE. %_I;_AR? OF THE
ANNEXURE – B AND we. ‘_ –
THE 2:» RESPONDENT. DA’l”E_r)—- fQ’.7.d8,2003″‘PRODUCED AT
THIS PETI’I’}ON coMi&<3'Vo'3§ #62 THIS DAY, THE
coum MADE 'I'HE,F'OLI.() $'.?{§(§:~ – ; ._
Writ "a claims she had been
apminterfi'-_Aa.s a' 'third respondent private
educational who had ogmplained that
tiké'afJpdh1unent she was not being paid
there was need to issue directions to
'–.,,the and the school management to
31, her etc.
_ V school management though served remained
and particularly as the Anncxure-B
3
with v_vI’it_petition purporting to beta
copy of t_1;ge_4 _’_7_–8-2003 in the -.4 2
deputy direc;_to_1_’__of pulflic igxstxfuctions {second
being disputed by the learned govetfiinem;
entered appearance on behalf of
and in fact contending that it a
at all, this court had in deted i6~11-
2007 directed the to hold
an enquiry into tlége Annexure-
B came to be as to whether
it is The petitioner
was giveo giarticipate in the predings
and the has in terms of the report
before the court, opined that
at Annexure–B does not appear to
be génuioe fiocunaent, as it is not supported by any
‘ W H ‘A government records; that it does not appear
one issued in the course of normal oflicial function
4
3. Sri N Aswafllanggayagfya. _R¢ddy_, learned counseaiufor
the vefifioner submits that subject writ
been presented asit was referred to finm thy;
Lesa! 3€Wi0=,sL¢0m1Fi*’¢°¢ and of
petition bein g__the ‘V L’
further is to on
behalf of mg not
contacted the muqsel by the
Regstmr (dudiéiaj ..
4. The by any
mate1’ia l° on ‘petitioner virtually tried to
mislead is no question of further
‘~ of” “writ petition. Writ petition is
Sd/1
Judge