High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ravindra Vidya Samsthe(Regd) vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravindra Vidya Samsthe(Regd) vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO¥%E*--.»j

DATED THIS THE 20"' my OF SEPTEMBER zecadieigkf is 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Moiwi sHAtxiT'ANAeQui;vArze'iTe 

wan PETITION NO.26847/2'Q¢9(6Ms»'K*SV§)4_v1   

BETWEEN I

Sri.Ravindra Vidya SaIns'the(IiIegd.t'} -. 

Represented by its President '  «V i  
Smt.H.Pushpa, aged 47yedre, V M is

D/o.Late A.HamiiIi»anti;iappai _   _ 

Residing at 11  .       

Housing      '
Thyagarajanagarsi, '   " 

Cha1Ia}:<;ei'éi"I'oVv;;:ri, K 'i; "    V  '

Chitraciurga. DVis'tn'eet.e   . j ...PE'I'ITIONER

{Byxsri}Ndreiidre.(§e§vda, Adv.)

ti ,  _'taxtev 4(:)f,V:K3AiT.1a'Eaka,

7Represen'__tei'i by its Secretary
To the Goverriment,
Department of Revenue,

"  is .M.S.VBuiIding,
'' .V_BaAnga1ore -»~ 560 001.

V   2.? The District Registrar

" For Societies,
Chitradurga District,
Chitradurga.



3. The Deputy Commissioner.
Chitradurga District,

Chitradurga. .  D' ~ 

[By Sri.E.S.Indresh, HCGP)

This Writ petition is filed untierm-ttcié~.22.s of

Constitution of India with: at _prayer to ,V.vdire'ct the
respondents to restore  possess.iort_  the

management to the petitioner with all itsproperty both

movable and immovable… record-sgcash and ‘institutions

which are in the custody and-tr;e’»,,ei1joy1nent of the

Special Officer, the Administrator,’»._ ‘the incharge

principal, the .~_Court….–…Trustee ‘Wand-‘the Deputy

Comrnissioneri… {,’,hi*ftrad§urga_:JE)is,t1*i-ct,Chitradurga.

This on for preliminary
hearing, tlf1is”da3,*,1.;§1:1e fjgottrt made the following:

A

VH_eard4′”~th’e . petiDti_orrer’s counsel and the learned

‘ ‘ ‘fiovernrzient,Advocat’e;l

ftte ‘petitioner has practically sought for a

‘.Vdirectiori.,Vto respondents to implement the order dated

“..jij2t)€h”..l§’eh’rua3’y 2009 passed in W.P.No.8649/2005 and

l connected matter. According to the petitioner, though

D11/2 years have elapsed, the order of this Court dated

20*’ February 2009 mentioned supra, is not

M

implemented by the respondents. The petitioner should

have filed contempt petition against the respond.eiit_s~,

Instead of doing so, the petitioner has .

Writ Court once again.

2. Be that as it rnay,,si1f_1ce th.e”‘respQn-dents are

duty bound to implement the dated
2009, if the same ii the
stipulated perio.d/, the.-~ directed to
implement as early as
from the date of
receiptpf * l *

Writ”‘petit.vioVn of accordingly.

. pp learned HCGP appearing for

is permitted to file memo of appearance

within fourv ieveeks.

Sd/-~
Itidqe

SPS