High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.Abdul Salam vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.Abdul Salam vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 August, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna


‘lI\il’It’ Iomuwnoinn Iuvn -cur–uuuswsu-s an..-

‘\HIV” l’\J”\%’M€’.£¢”‘V-!9’1V’\,P””9″‘V fifi”5.’W3′?’ ‘MVIEWH I ”\ll’ “i\l’|I\I ‘I1-‘lIl’Il\r”I

the petitioners seek that the xmtice be

quashed and to hold that the
Cmissieener has no jtirisdiction to i”
a. second appeal, since Rule 108v.{B’§~{.;6A}
Karnataka Lama Rules, does

further appeal against

before the Armistant Comniaai:2n§§r–,

6 . Tlmugh the AV1aarnga”;1:i’ ‘>~1’M’~Va’o<:at9
sought to 31:ppcs_j:{:'«'j;:;i:3;:.::. 'av£:_t:"io1i_" Deputy
Ccn'm3.'ssiT

is the original date which has been grantsd..’4’§c:;;:A:.:.’:4. ‘
within four months from the date :t6»..y;hi§=iiV.V i;¢’I, ‘

is advanced. if :such advancement

contention: of the parties éépag.

In tarms of the p :3e%:;:f.tic:n

stands disposed o£._ ‘ Hg:

Sdl-E

Iud “é