IN THE HIGH comm' 01:' KARNATAKA AT BA~NGAL§iéE '
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY<0F~- I M' x
' BEFORE % V
THE HON'BLE MR. A 3% BQP»:§:-N'$I_:A""
wax? . E-T.T!Q.N ..Oa8?.5:(.,.2QQ4 (c:.:\;r:~K.LA37
1 sea: THEPPAEA T SIG'SvE€I:"HUS$AIP3}'%PEA"
AGED AE;0.u'I'--57*,rEA}?S.«: _ _ ~
R/A I\iO§._1-9§i?':}, A,2;~*u:*5' ._NACm*_E-».. " "
sTA'1§ira*_acrA.t2;,_ RA1_§:._;{LI1§ '
2 SR1-VBA"LA~*1 .
ZAGED =é.BO'u*r;V5s I
ASST; ExE::uTtv_E~E:N£;I'r¢EER
ZELLA.
NIJALlNGAPPA"NA,G}%--R,' RAICHUR PE'I'ITlONERS
(BY game sfiasaivxmra Si-IE'I'I'Y. ADV. FOR
'Mfg S¥{vE'I*PY"P.N.13___'571~'i9«GDE ASSOCiA'T'ES}
_ 1"ié'E..,S*1*§g*rE OF KARNATAKA
REPBé_.'.iTs CHIEF SECRETARY
\(fDHA"NA SOUDHA
.. BANGALORE -560 001
V. " 2 THE HON'BLE LOKAYUKTHA FOR KARNATAKA
' (By SR1 H.M. MANJUNATH, HC-GA FOR R-1
M 8 BUILDING, BANGALORE -1
REP. BY DY. REGISTRAR (ADMIN '
RESPONDENTS
SR] M SUDHAKAR’ PAI, AIDV. FOR’ R-Q]
_,T_§§3ovcmmcnt Advocate for the 1*”
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AE’I:Ié2LEE7;5.”2E ED
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF’ INDIA WITH RPRAYER TO:
QUASI-I THE REPORT DEFENDANT. 30..3,2002-“I”S€§UE’D BYTHE
ADDL. REGISTRAR OF R-2 VIDE ANNEXUREEBI:-‘QUASH
ORER DATED 13.7.2002 ISSUED BY E,-2 T0 1.2- ITE.IM=POSlN(3E..TPH§A
PENALTY OF COMPULSORY EETIEEME«NT’-DN THE .’PETI.’PIONERS’ .
AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TOT’RECOVE;R E _
SUM OF RSA,57,856–25 FROM *TEI%4E’.«PETIT1DEE.Rs ‘IENN;”-‘E1 ”
. . . . », ~.
1–If ‘Du!-ti’-Ira.-:1 J’Il’i’l’I’I’I’l’I n-“rs-n. v£’J’I.’l1-,
J. J. In J 1.4 Lr’I.I.I.I.aI.I-I15 \_”.I1I. I-ll 5.1!-tCl.I.I.I-I
Court made the fo]1owiti,g”:..
“l”1-a.-{cs
.1 .Ll..lI’.l
The azf: _bEfp1Ie:_«- this’ aeckillg for issue”
of w1*it__qf communication dated
1E.7.2Do2_ I _ Lek/ARE/4; Eng; 19/ 1999-2000
‘ issued is irnpugned qt Anncxuxvc-A
to t1Tf:”1::D11’17icI11;» ., pétitioners have also callefl in quesfion
*,_c1.£i_t¢_3r_1H “” ‘I3Q,3,_2._OO2 which 15 _i_1_npug1.Ic;:c1 at
= .. A T.-.’..-..,_.In,….’g_ __ Ir} +44; +11- -….4-:4-:,….
I’l.I.l’..I.|’.’I.t.l’l l3 1 Wu” .I.J (SJ .L.E..I.I.I 1JErl..II-I\.aFl.I I
A ‘ I have he-an: Sri Shasl1i1ciran_ shetty, Icmnéd
“..ér{}]1:fi.’D3el for the petitioners, Sri Manjtmath, learned
respondent and
3
J)
O ,
‘I
Sri Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel appeaxm ”
lespondent. ~-
3. Having heard the Ieegectjve have = V L’
4. Though 1 been timed ofi
behalf of 011 which
petitioners is that the
Hon’b1e wae_’:’not-vested with the power to make
the reco1:1tne1tdtattot;t’ vide oommuzuicafion dated
18.2.2002. .VTi1e_V_V$oid dootmdxtention is urged in View of the fact
«t11.i=-J; i; th’.i’«._k,.rr:=seI_1t case, the e11qui1’_v is initiat.ed at the
Go«ven;menft. As such since the ei1’1″”§r till the :-.*%”e of
xsub1J..1it.t:di11g the nepolt dated 30.3.2002 was at the insta;nce of
V-,,v’Hot£’}3le Upalokayulctha, the impuglaed notification dated
U ___§18.7.2OD2 (luring the absence of Upalokayuktha is without
jurisdiction.
}’
this “I11etter issues a fnesn (1 ‘T3011 1 ‘
5. On the aspect of the sustainability” :of *
commtuxication dated 18.7.2002, _.fl1e._4Inat_.’r.e’i””i1e§::ii.”netV be
adverted to in detail since a 3111111′ ‘ai*:iseiie
co-ordinate bench of this WEI§io.8_1OSiiQ5…whe1:eiJ1i–.V:”
this Court by ortler elated hes ‘–eo i1sicJIe1ed this
aepwt cf die ma-..,t,er ‘.i.7i1Wi’»…_ 1w.5.Ii_ L__4.: been followed by
**–‘s ”””‘t in W1P.}’€o.}971..E’-}’wO4.-A am the an-«A men- is fl-GL1″!
conclucieti, ifiniiexuze-A datesig ’13;’?°’.2L’)02 c:a111″1<:-t be
sustained the» 3a?11e.iévVi.aeedidiIigly quashed.
6. ..V_T11.o1ig11iVtiie counsel for the petitioners has
uxged xib.e’ei1q1iityT1*epo1’t at A1’inex11Ie–B is also not
‘ «_I H16 View that the contentions urged are
1- 1.!
regaxd to the same. liberty is left open to the peiiiioners.
I
In that View of the matter, the pefificn is’ :t.1i&41::J«r4:i)’.’.-.?’.:;f’3″ci« ‘
The matter is remitted to the HOI1′!.’l§: tp K V’
Iecolmider the matter at the
Upalokayuktha from the sfé$€~.. 0f it:’fl=:ipt_ ‘A L’
mparti No c..st._,