Sri K R Ramachandra Naik, S/O Sri … vs The Karnataka Scheduled Caste And … on 11 December, 2009

IN1TH$HKH{COURTCHVKARNATAKA,BANGALORE

DATED THIS ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBERv2(i!.(59..

BEFORE

THE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTECE RAM MOH.A.N'_jREI3DY_ 3

WRIT PETITION NO. 34565;' OF.200g«_(SQDI§}    _ 

BETWEEN :

SR1 K R RAMACHANDRA NAIK,_..._  
S/O SR1 RAMJI NAIK V   
AGED 50 YEARS  'A  a_  ; _ --
R/O EARALAHALL1 VILLAGE  '
KALAMANGALAE-O_ST "  " 1 T.
MADABALA HOBLI;'MAGAi3I'~TQ;   V. 
RAMANAGARAM   _  » 

    ' ...PE'I'ITIONER

(BY S33/£T§'T'B' )
AND:  ' V V '

1 THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTE
A _i AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
 DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD,
 9TH, AND 10TH FLOORS
 _V'I.SHVE',SHWARAYA MAIN TOWER
-_ A V'ID'I#£AL\IfA"VEEDHI,
' BANGALORE -- 560 001
R./B':-ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

  THE CHAIRMAN

" THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULES CASTE
 AND SCHEDULED TR1BES

DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD,

9TH AND 10TH FLOORS
VISHVESHWARAYA MAIN TOWER
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE A 550 001



3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARY 
SOCAIL WELFARE AND LABOUR DEPARTMENT  
VIDHANA SOUDHA  It  '
BANGALORE A 560 OOI

  ~

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED!lUNljER'ARTI'C_l;ESI,_22§3_ 
& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA *PRAYIN.G' To oAI,L*f.j

FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO, CONCERNINGI
AND CONNECTED WITH TH'E_V"E/IPUGNED _ ...DTD
30.7.08 VIDE ANNEX-D AND"*'I».D'ECLAR'E_  'ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING  SAIDwQRDER, AS
ALSO THE SAID ORDvERw~._AS_~" VOID, INOPERATIVE AND
INFIRMIN LAWAND ETCL;  ' I '  

THIS PETITION COMING-«..A'oN.,i PRELIMINARY
HEARING T}lI.S'--1)A'i(I._f1'I~1E«C®I}RfE  FOLLOWING:

:5.

 first  appellate authority having

not ShoWnl"'a1fiy~_15esAp_on'Se to the petitiOner'S appeal

.ll."'agailn:StA.Qrdei7"tit§V 30.7.2008 dismissing him from

 SeI'-Vtee V"I~p:If.eferred this petition for a Writ of

V V' 1'I1E1X'1(.iE1I}f':llS,' A

   Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

  Perused the averments Set out in the memorandum Of

 writ petition and the annexures. It is no doubt truethat

fix



3
the petitioner has lodged an appeal against the order of

dismissal which the respondent is required to Co1a.sider

and pass orders. In reply to the petitioner’swappiiieation

under the Right to Information Act,

that the petitioners appeal wcsinldlpejj.

Board and after a decision is tak’en,”‘ the

communicated to the petitiodriexrd.

3. In that vievtt ofdthe petitioner may

pursuade theqfioarid h}r…’a=..represer1tdation Within two

weeks from .t’ofr’j’.-pa’s.sf_–an order over his appeal

memo at I have no reason to believe
will not ‘be the Board.

;_Writ,p.Petiti’o11**is accordingly ordered.
.2 ‘
Sd/-E
JUDGE

BN3