IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EAI\Ic;-AECIRE
DATED THIS THE 03% DAY OF NovEI\2IIBER,R[I2I)o9' I
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. IUSTIQE H.4.'I'=lA._'NAGAM.Oi{ANERAS' %
W.fP.No.26755)2I)Q?(LB;R*E.§)'
BETWEEN: . R .
SRI ACHUTH BEAT V
S/OGOVINDEBIEA1"-BIIAVE -
AGE 65 YEARS" ~ '
R/O 1x.»IAIH..R'QAD';' S;@RA--E TOWN" A
SORAE T_A,LUI<.g . _'
sHIMQGAI4_DIsTRI.P., ADV.)
'' I OF KARNATAKA
R'E"\/ENAUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
A RANGALORE
= REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
7<xA»=~
In.)
2. THE TAHASILDAR
SORAB TALUK
SORAB,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
3, KLRANGANATH
S/0 LAKSHMANAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS
GOLD SMITH
CHAMARAIPETE,
SORABA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT,---------
V _ ._ 5 _ RESPONDENTS
(By SMTM.C.NAGASHREE,:HCGP P':QRiiR]i;2:..' 1-
SR1 S.v.p:_I3Ai;AiSH, E011, R3') it
VThis"'writ:«ipetitiQn _iiie'(I.1_1Vndeir Articies 225 & 227 of the
Constitutien" -praying to direct the R1 to immediately
send tile' _ V' Vpiiipertarinhing to dispute bearing
No.Pa.Purn.Nya;Vi.Ve.0i1r'2{XJ9--I0 to the R2.
'V This ipetition conning on for preliminary hearing this day,
th_e'1~cQ11rt made thev--feliowing;
ORDER
writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a
direeetieih to the first respondent to send file hearing
it 2_i’N9t’Pa.Pun1.Nya.Vi.Va.O1/2009-10 to the second respondent and
aw
in turn a direction to the second respondent to dispose the dispute
between the petitioner and the third respondent.
2. Third respondent questioned license g1’a’11ted>in’favonr =
the petitioner for putting up constmctidoniv be’fore_the ..’sse¢E:is_¢1
respondent – Tahsildar. The secQri’d._yrespo11.de1itA g’ranted”an”iorderV’
of stay in favour of third~..respondentend.againstithe” petitioner.
Subsequently, at the instance of petitioner respondent
–~ Tahsildar the stay order
granted earliieirigyszitddiiout.:}1eari.ng the third respondent. The
respondent.aiapproachhed in W.P.No.14956/2009. This
coisat vfide order”–dat_e_d,15.6.2009 set–aside the order of second
respondentdated 21.5.2009 and remanded the matter to the
‘second respondent — Tahsildar for fresh disposal in accordance
with .layvf_. Further this court directed the first respondent to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the then Tahsildar of
.. ,V_.-Sdorab Taluk, Shirnoga District. In compliance of the directions
#/g3k-
5.
issued by this court, first respondent has called the file in tinestion
from the second respondent and has initiated proc_eediln’gs’ j’a–gai:i1s:t
the then Tahsildar. In the meanwhileythe pe1′.itiovner-:app’1’oached ii
the present Tahsildar and requested dispose” the
between him and the third respondent. Second failedll
to take any action on t}re”ground«file is pending before
the first respondent. Hencethis writrv.pe’titiori; ”
2. No pvrejiudice ivillébe cau_secl”to-“the respondents, if a
direction respondent to retain the copies of
relevantipapers in l’ilo’;.?t5iar.Pun1.Nya.Vi.Va.01/2009-101/2009-
piirpose_____of disciplinary enquiry against the then
V 7Iiai1sildar’of”Soraba Taluk and to send back the file to the second
respondvetitfifor disposal in accordance with law. Further no
Aprejudiceiwill be caused to the respondents, if a direction is issued
‘1_to’tlie second respondent to dispose the dispute between the
V “petitioner and third respondent in accordance with law and as
‘5 .._;’
expeditiously as possible. For the reasons stated Va’boa\}e, the
following:
oRDE1i;__
Writ petition is hereby allowed; V
First respondentgis’ *hereub’y. directed to retain the
copies of relevant ‘_papers-~that.}1r_e_’..necessary from the
33:No.Pa.i§i1iii;Nysa.Vi.Va.01/2009-I0 for
id continuing the disciplinary enquiry
A * against Tahsildar of Soraba Taluk, Shimoga
District and to send back the file within a time
::fr*3n:;e of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy
ii’ of this order to the second respondent.
~ V iii)
The second respondent in turn is directed to dispose
the dispute between the petitioner and the third
K/_/\
6
respondent within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of fiie from the first responde:tit,.
JUDGE§»”‘
DKB