§N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAiiF§w" ' '» L. A
CIRCUIT BENCH AT BHARWM3. V
DATED THIS mg 29% my o;.~,;zTma;,%% 2009». ' _v [ 1:'
BEI~7'O._RE V' V N
THE I~{ON'BLE MR. JUsT1C'EvV.:As:HoK."s.. §'m%ic1§igGER1
WRIT 1r>E'1'1'I*1c>:§% Is:os.M633é3s::;;3t§i 12009: AAPMC)
BETWEEN:
1. ARHANTHVTRADING C0, ._ .
REPREsE:§:'?_,ED' 'BY ITS . PRC%P§<"1b'1'OR
MANQILAL 'N~;§gm\iiA_L JAII~§. ..
A{3E:46--Y3ARS§,' OCC: BUSINESS,
we .a.PMc'1'AaR'D,GA£aA_G» .
2. M] S v;JAYALA§(M1..'r'RADERS
BY r'I'S"':?ROPR§_E'I':)E'~'
';BASAVARA-.I_ RACHAPPA UMNABADI
'Acmas YEA1'<:3,...QCc: BUSINESS
'V " ~, R/"QPLGT No.50, APMC YARD,GAI)A(}
I ire.-§«:§2AéH-A§3RA?PA BASAPPA JIGAJINNI
. "'~AGE:36;_ YEARS,
._ 0:2: gusmass
; QAPMC Yaxmeanae.
".. ~.4'. _sHiéEE TRIMURTYTRADERS
V' --. "BY ITS PRGPRIETOR,
SUBHASH RAMARAO VERNEKAR
AC'vE:6{} YEARS, OCQBUSENESS
R] C} PLO'I'.NO.135,APMC YARD
GABAG PETITIONERS
(By SR1 MAHESH WG§EYAR, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA «
DEP'1'.OF C€}--C)PERATION
M.S.BUiLDING, DR.AMBEDKAR 'VEEDI
BANGALORE-560 om. ' 4- .
2. THE DIRECTOR OF
NO. 16, 2ND RAJ B HTe5..VANAV'R'GAD,
BAGNALORE
3. SI3:cRE'rARY__ "
AGRICUL'E'{2'RAL PIf{OiZ)U§31'3._M~AR_1(:3'7TI«PiG
coMMm_'EE,;::..- ' = 3
GADAc;--é~:-;a2V1eVz';;§V " RESPONDENTS
(By slvfzf. K. v1Vt}'¥«.¢s'J.4}\'2'{,"'zV~I:(:~<;P FUR R1 55 R2
SR1 'MAz...L1KA1h_r§; N 'C, i3A.SAREDDY, ADV. FOR R3}
TH1S"%x§z%R;T"PE'1'!TEQ:}'sz IS P'£LED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND .227 €)F"T.HEVVCONST}TU'{'ION 09' mm; PRAYING TC} (1)
QU,g.:~:iH_LA'FHE IAAMPIJGPJED ORDERS DATED 24»/12/2003
'PAVs'sE9"A'jBY"*FHE Raspormgwr No.3 {N FILE No.3 WHICH
'i§RE--V.PROi)§}CE¥) HERE WiTH as ANNEXURES-A-A3. (2)
L'c;::<fA_:sIT "iNTE._.Ri1%!*'"GRDER 09 STAY, STAYING THE OPERATION
A1'm"%EX:«:(:Lm:'0N OF' THE QRDERS DATES 24/12/2008
PAssEn--._'Bv~3'HE RESPONSENT No.3 ZN FILE No.3 WHICH
«..._j ., '~..ARE FRQDUCED HEREWWH AS ANNEXURES-A--A3 PENQING
xD'i.'i3I?i)SA"'L OF THE ABQVE WRIT PETITION.
_ Vrals ?E'}'ITION COMING ON FOR PREEJMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE comm' MABE '§'HE FOLLOWING:
1&3
ORDER
Smt. Vidyavathi. K, the lea1’nt:d'”HC{}F=’_” také ‘ j
{Lnoticc for the respondent N(>s.f{
Efiasareddy. the learncé advoéiégf 515 (ii:Ar9€C’»./5_ed ‘gwiice fer}?
the rcsponeiem: No.3.
2. ‘§’he pcfifioners thaves the orders dated
24.12.2098 (Annrzxuresjfk ii} 53;’ pgggéd’ vb;§{“i1:¢§ Iesponcicnt No.3
fielding that tit}-9: 1%?’-“::%#=<=~t-i'V*€_ the peiitionexs (plot
No. 153:7"i;:"'i»e;s;§:%z;t §§,%§i 4§1;¢§'p§'1;itiofiéi"No. 1; piot Nos.167 and :58
in mspéét bf fat: plat N£)..2214 in respect of the
petitirmer NE}.~V3;V'p1Q'j'r. No. Vzpixa inirespcct of the petitioner No.4)
" §-1s.._thc gfififiaiiem have failed {<3 compiy with the tcxms
' iixf istter.
A $3 leaxttiecl advocates, Sri Mahesh Wodeyar and
C. Basamdéy fairly submit that the ismze is no
A l vJ;g’:3rri_’..«i*es integra. It is covered by the order, dated 12.03.2009
by mag Court in W.P.No.61847-61850/2009 and
‘W.P.No.61925/2009. ‘I’hese petitions are also disposed off in
terms of the said cavered matter w*ifl:1 the followings-
993%
ORDER
1) The impugned forfeiture orders 3
abeyance for a period of A’
today.
2) The pefitioncrs shali an fgr
ghe sanction “film the
construdion fave
Weeks to(3§a.y.g
Tm’: tf1ii:i:’V-x::éspb’1::§:1€nt’~!§PMC shall oonsixler the
for the pian sanction
‘ ‘V Withjn”fiyé weeks themafter in accordance with
.’ . TI;é:’j_®t§ition£:x*s shall 9113; up the buiiding wiihin
” .. f::sut::’z’ limii of six nzwnths firom the date af
Hfeeaipt of the sanctioned plan.
5) §f the pctitienerrs default in aéheriiag to the
time scheduie stipulated herein abave, the
98%
5
impugned forfeiture orders shall stand”
automatically rcvivcd.
4. Wztit yeafions are disposed ofi’ —
order as to casts.
5.516