Sri Nallappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2009

M.W»H ww rmmawmamwm §””§§%.:tM muwwa £39? fifllifiwaflflififi i”§§GH WOUQT $3″ Wfififlflffififi FWQW CQEW? 0?: WQWRVKW fiififi 4

this backgraund that the patitianar is beiara

thia Court.

3. The Government Plaadar waQid §uhm§t«.

that he woubd head time ta vafiify thfivfilaifi pf

the petitioner aad to :make asfibmissifififi zafi to

whether the getitioner’§”a§@lica£icfi~§e§qires to

be ccnsidared.

4. Hotwithfitfindififi ‘,;¥$i5;if” since the
patitianar ihfiggxgréaufigfi §n. éEkndw1adged copy’ at
the appi;ca£ipfi} ‘ £$a;””sa$gx’ requires to be

addraésad is ac颣d$n:a with law.

5. P_Ha¢¢§,R tha }§atitien is allawad. The

reg§¢ndant5″a§é di#acted ta consider the aasa af

V th§up逧ti¢§§r far regularisation at unauthorised

“acfiufiatiafi in aacordance with law.

Sd/Ǥ__
Judge

*a1hf–.