High Court Karnataka High Court

The Gramodyoga Yenne Utpadakara … vs The Regional Director Esi … on 22 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Gramodyoga Yenne Utpadakara … vs The Regional Director Esi … on 22 October, 2008
Author: K.Ramanna


– :=12:.:§:c;:%:<:)is;a:,_ BIREC
"a..s.i'.fiO'z2P<3r<AT1oN,
NEELAR '¥:$1NI*€YE?E'3',–._

-..B£~.:€GAL{2-RE Cf:~’}f¥.~.~

V . a:Jp;Pt5ra ::~1;s:*’:’. BIJAPUR.

” 7 4.” ‘ = THE s’F£§c:AL TAE-£SELQ&R,
»_”;v.,U.<::~;.AND MISCELLANEOUS

' Emma TALUK. BIJAPUR ms': KO RESPGNDENTS

'23? SR: M,P.GEETH,A DEV}, giav FUR R-«I AN9 SR} R,1«;.m'I"ri,
' ADV. me R-«Q AND 3;

LN rmg HIGH CQURT <3»? KARNATAKA, AT__
DATED THIS 'FEE 221$ DA¥ <§§
BPIET-) 1?'n3:4A'—-._:""'. A% K V%
THE E-3'.{)N'BLE MR.JUSjfIcE 1»:
MFA

BETWEEN: N
THE GRAMo:3:=v0«:';g.*:Erf?§E:
U'i'PAD:*:KARA :3AH'a:_;a:e1"_ _

SANGHA 1.;2:'é:":*g.:;:«%.,' ' _ »

GRAMOSY(3G£pE?!§STE, '

Bxaapim»»Ezs5'g;.o:;1;:.; " _ -.

E"£r*f3 C.oMh:1ss;oNER,

RECQVERIES,

apgrtzciafion of the oral and docuzatmntary 6VidCI}¢3(:’2_. on

record. It is contended that thaugh the has

sxamincd number of witnesses thcgam flOfl”Gth€f fl13I_1 the

oflicials, their eviécncc in the ;whAf¥::h’TTwas ivif_hi:13__

knewlcdgc, non of them hélvgig sti.-ftcd that F

society had employed 32 to there is
no clear evidence, in CQI§¥_’;C t0 3 Wrong
conclusion thatf:}:1c: by ES! Act
and it has ngiiii “1””.-.=.”–1.i;I«:ings, the mamfials
piaecd on that only 6 to 7
_ mgsiered afict: of the
appeH.’;-;ia:;t?” fpcrson performs the éiuties of

operator ojiu $machiz1e, no evidence placed on

” _ shes’? many persons employed in the

gjroccss, the E81 Court procmded on a man:

p$rEéumpt:i<';fx_ come to a exrancaus conclusion and

paszécd flgé impugned order under challenge. In fact, the

V' _"' except filtaiiag the oil anti markcfing of that ail

various salsa depots situated at dififimfli places

'f,.,.__

9.2

I'?

appeflant. Thercforti, even after z*c~appIEciafi0I1§fc5f _

evidrnce, I do: not find any illqaiity or iIx:§n*mct:1v_:=::s.a «
order mssed by the court bcbw. ‘I’}1e «V
under challcngza does not suifi’
iufirmities. Them is no subsfaxfial of

in this appeal. Hams, thifi apigé.-1115

asp