IN THE !*¥2GH CIGURT GEF KARNATAKA, BANGALQRE omen THE} THE 24?" mar 05 AUGUST 2016 BEFCJRE me HON'8L§ MR. JUS'f'IC§ RAVI MAuMf€$H'%§'jAL*F%A: _ BETWEEN SR1 (EANWH KUMAR AGED 44 YEARS, S10 SR1 MANJAPPA eHAmaA1'r-:1 RESIDENCEQ: . 3&1-msn) TEHPLEV» MAuaaa.oas~s7soe2 A; % (av saxitfiasgsx-é§;A.w111%Aj'Pa.ésAn;V%Aovomrs) AKD: = A1 L%'*c§amaA1:<3:eaAm< CGRPQRATIGR BANK HQUSE, V _ RUCTS PQST BOX 930.34, " «MANGAi.§i§E~5?Sm1 2 5:41' aAvImA GAME?! was 35 YEARS, ~ wig GANE$H WMAR , ""_«B1-MAQIRATHIRESIDENCE L &%s55mm. co:-wwm BEHIND NMGALADM 'rEhm..E, masmams-srmz .. . RE8P'DNflE¥93TS MO' (BY SR1 V 3 RAvzsHAHKAR, AWOCATE FOR R1, R2 - seavea) THIS W.P FILE!) UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22?"*OF THE C0f~iSTITUTION 0? INDIA PRAYING To QUf§$H* 5'fH:E«v,' amen PASSED 3*: me am aanezmoae m DT.4.111.G9, VIDE ANN-B ETC. This petfitian coming on for Group this day, the Caart rrsa£;'}e_"-age fo!:m*;Eng:%_v ' The respondent-Bufittk'fi!¢t§ €§.;§§f%!e;;:3'2§1200? bafore
$16 mam rwaovary
of the amthar. By the
csrder ¢gase::T2f:%. %s;*2%.:§:23; ed.’A.ssa:.<§32s/2907 was aiiowed.
An :31′ the Ljmitatian Act was
mada_ by pa:£it§c§b.g’r’«§ér condanatian af delay of 1738
r 1Adag?$’§’«:Sn;b_f§:!ing’ tfi锑aagik:ati:an sesléng so set aside the ardar
amt! by the Tribunal. By the impugned
éiwrifif V.71i¥.J11.2W9, the appficatien was rsjacted.
7 Henfim, mtition.
2. Srifihashikanfix Prasad, isamed wmmsei appearing
the patifioner eonbands that are Tribunal has not
V’ considered the sufmvent cause shawn by him white
W
3
rejecting hffi appiicatian. He contends that this Tribuna%__has
cam:-aimed an er-mr in disbaiiaving the case
petitianer that he: was physicatiy unweii me attanfi”
pmceedingse He further $631!-‘:é’fId5_
accemrrwdatian was ahaded, wh§r;:b_s§*A:¢$’v
rribunat. Hem, he submiwkjtfiat%th§%:mpugnga&@j¢m% is k %
bad in law and m was mg in a«,a:§e$fs7f%?t:e;%A%.
3. Sri. V.B.Ravisff§rfE§*aflL..vi§s§vrr¥§t§:_ fétaunaai agswaring
for 319 1″ rmpafidant .:f;§1Qé;tV__ti§e”:;?,;§t:itionar has an
altemaiiiaéVai’:§?.§.#:féE§§£:Ecfijusjrarréédy’ <'.:f an appea! and
hence, 52:2" for. He submas that tha
pefitiarger iséa lf.'i'H.I:IVi,t"7éJ&jA¥"v;3'fif'1$:L3fw¥' and hence, interferema in
V' .633-':s §??Id:,._–:§rei§r w<$¥.fi:i"'Evé urznacwry. He ylacas miéance on
: 1§:<._;.f am judgment reyorted in II! (2919)
at:% % 495'%%(*.;§%} (warren Mm: or man -vs-
._sA1'm§:a.'r: memos mm amass), to contend that
A ":L:"§r.s§ 'stay 3? an action in exercise cf' the powers under
V' Afticie 226 13! um Canstitution of India shcuié he wepirxg
in mind this aitsmativa and afiicackzxus rarmdy avaifabka.
Ha furthav placed raiianea an paragraph ~ 27' of we same
judgmmt no csmtzerzd that the exercise as; discrfg/;i,m a
garitiun under Artide 225 of me Canstitutécn ef . Inid~ia
simuid bra dame with caufian, care and circums§§£é¥i¢:hV§.i'Lj'*~
4. Heard boflw counsei.
5. The pvatitionar if’!
wndanation of defies: of 178 Vdays ift¥fi i’ing,
he was haadrieidarz and hancajv ct>ul€3~.Vri<;t£.V-I
when O.A.f€a.326i20(3?:1a:;as ;§!i$y§é£3._. .;:T%1-g fin:§viVtig' Vm:.orded
by fine Tribune: E15 that the awe affidavit
is incarrett. Thergis n'1ea1?aée'ri'a!i3a?;ffai.1a_I{_t:§VV%'e far the Tribunai
ho d¥55i31§B3f@ 'ref the petitioner. Meaty to say
that fiafi Wtitioner is meorraact is
unmiétéénabte. ~ V
V T_ 3%-::§§a::..uf awe reasons mm in me affidavit, I'
afr3_§:%f'd1§§.:§f§é'§jéidered vista that the reasons far the delay in
_fi§i:-kg' épptkatbn waking aondamticn are just and
1/ 1.ff"r§;§§fi«5ahie. The petiticner having stated in the affidavit
blink ha was rrmdicaiiy unfit mquires to be accepted. I' am
bf the considsrafi -View that the petfiimer has shown
suffkisnt cause fer the mndanafion cf dam'. The order of
tha Tribuna! is unjust and mquims to has inlwrfered with.
W
7'. 'rm citation mind upset: by the éaamefi eounsayfor
fl-we rfiponderxt B with mferenca tn: the acmn in.'..:e"5é§g;-§é.ELi.zs}évv.,
:3! we pnwers under Artide 226 emf the Can$§I;fitz;£i§gr3 '
India. In paragraph-18 a!' the said-}fiég«m;eif;t, fefiafefice
has bun mafia with regard tog an exfiréisfis sf
power :21' fives High Court in p:§ér3;:girt~iz§§v_; of 'V V
auction' In the cam €Ori€~fi_F_"f!8d; f~ffgi1-ACo;.|rt had
inbe:-fared with the mf§ér_"wha;'€in wara
sought to he p:.:&* Ǥsg::. It is under
mom circurrt§£'§i1¢§i'a"s;'.._' in paragraph 18
came ba; Suprums Court of India
has aI5o"ns§tad' same paragrayh thatlthe
exs1f¢.isé {if ah "as.I§éfnat§ve tamed}: is a ruh af discretion,
fbut_ Lizat""§Ar:ss{"'¢;f tiampufsmn. Under am cirnumsitanaas in
§i:bi¢i§.Afi1?§§""g::§fxééi;fV'£i:as passed, I' am af the mnséderw viaew
_ tlwafiit relatrabh tn thé cam can hand. The
. . §nxh«a_;:stinafr of an aiizsrrxative remedy in the insfiant ewe is
T'.'11nét"a§; efficaciws rerfmiy. This is an apgiication snaking
cartdenatim of deiay of 1?8 days. Tim -aiternahe
A V appeiable remedy garmat be carssidex-ad as an afifiaacéaus
rarnedy undsr the present: circumstnnca.
QT?/r
mat: 31$ said amczmt 'gs sufféciaent ts shew his m_'rt=§:fE§_i s:,:_,
net withsanding his t:cn*£:en&ns Mfore the
undertaking 3 accardircgiy raccr6aad…..
_ L %
Mm