IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 20 10» A
BEFORE
THE HONELE MR. JUsT1cE__A...I1T J T
WRTT PETITION NO83135 O-E 2:309
BETWEEN
SMT. RENUKA,
W/O MUTTANNA OUJJALAVATE; -
AGED ABOUT 20 _ '
OCC. HOUSEHOLD, T :
R/O ADAVI--HULAf?gABAL,"'» -
TQ.MUDDEBI:aAE,4i1'--
DIST. E1JAP_UR», ~ 1;' ' ...PE"I'ITIONER
(BY SRI:'SUDE~HRSI:NiGH'f?:W=JAPUR. ADV.)
1. THE STATE OEKARNATAKA,
" REPQBY ;_I.TS»._SECRE'=}'3ARY To
GGV_Ei"?NM_EN"IT.V WOMEN AND
"'C_I~%1"'IL_}i) wELEARE"% DEPARTMENT.
M ~S"'}3UILD"il\I_G~;BANGALORE.
_ 2. THE D'E\/ELOPMENT OFFICER.
'WOMENVVAND CHILD WELFARE
= *DE1:=ARTMENT AND MEMBER
' 'sECRE'1'ARY, SELECTION COMMITTEE
Ex.)
FOR AN GANAWADI WORKERS,
MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. BIJAPUR.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT AND MEMBER
OF SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR
ANGANAWADI VVORKERS,
MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. BIJAPUR.
4. SMT. YAMANAVVA,
W/O BIIIMAPPA WALIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
OCC. --, R/O KONNUR,
TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. BIJAPUR.
5. THE ASST. DIRECTOR,
WOMEN AND CHILD wEL'jmR_E I ~ _
DEPARTMENT, BIJAPUR. i;';..jjma:;'3_PoND1«:NTs
{BY SRI Ii{UT1~.éi;rxR,C' 3: 5]
I' ' '
This .1I,')e1"_VifioTi'- ialllfiled under Articles 226 and
,,227 GI-jthfé' C0nsti1:1,1:i_Q11 of India, praying to quash the
sflelec"t'i0n5¥*01'der dated 24.9.2008 issued by 5*"
I.'-:fes1:)l0r:dev11t~l .._Asst. Director, Woman and Child
Welfare" vvD:ep'azf:ment at Bijapur to Advat Hulagabal
villa,gé',* Mudiicbihal Taluk, Vide Annexure J to the Writ
I I petition a_:ic'l .et'c.,
.. ,Th.iS~¢petiti0n Coming on for prelimirzary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Mr. M Kumar, learned AGA is directed to take
notice for respondents No. l, 2 and 5.
2. Even though the matter is listed for”pre’lixr1inaryVe. ”
hearing, with consent it is taken for’ 2;:
3. A government notification’ was issiiedi regarding
appointment of Anganav\’?’a.di Suffice to say
that the petitioner was…15e_qui.red, a domicile
certificate frorn “at”-~-fiidavi–Hu1agabai,
Mudde1:V5iha–1 ‘and No.4 was required to obtain
domicile c’e1jtiticate the Tahsildar at Konnur.
é_Mud:d5+::bihalVt “~ap_pears the petitioner has given
.7.,r’epVresen,tation”‘ regarding allocation of domicile
certificate’ ‘j_re’spect of respondent No.4. The petitioner
lafi’«§&7irrit petition before this Court in WP
2008. This Court disposed of the Writ petition
directing the petitioner to give a representation to the
appropriate authority. The said representation
be given within three weeks from the date ~
said order. A copy of which is produced
4. Grievance of the p’etitionerep_p’-r/. d that
notwithstanding the direction Court in
the eariier writ petififif: _ is not been
considered. _ V
5. I Apparently the
petitionerdddhast’giver;irejpresentation to the wrong forum
inasmuch 2 as the “ifepre._sentation was required to be
given:.toggresponde;’1t and not to the Tahsildar.
diideed Vtobe noticed that Tahsiidar was not a party
Vito:Vt«heg”eai*1ier pr-oceedings at all. Having regard to the
_ fact””that_”pro’per representation is not given as directed
this court another direction is required to be issued.
the following order is passed:
ORSER
Petitioner is directed to give a representati0I.1,_ as
directed in the earlier writ petition to respondent
Within 21 period of four weeks from today. M
representation being given aridm “race-ive;d_tV”‘byV “-5″””‘:
respondent, the same shall. be oon;s_idered”_i’wit11in.”’ap ”
period of three months theregsfter.
disposed of aocordinglyfli,
Mr. M perrriitted to file his
memo of appeVa{fr_ant5evviti:ir1 four ‘Weeks.
so?-