High Court Karnataka High Court

A V Srinivasa Gowda vs The Food Inspector Mulbagal Taluk on 17 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
A V Srinivasa Gowda vs The Food Inspector Mulbagal Taluk on 17 March, 2008
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA'NGA.L"G,RE
DATED THIS THE 1711* DAY or»   "~ u
PRESENT %'  " " "  H

-rm: uorrnm am.  

1 AVsnpmvasnaowna-..j=--_ -  v
310  VEENKATARAMAIAH  'V 
AGEBV ABOUT' 4,'3__'!EARS,..' V .
ago .A+?;"._4,l.!-!.1|.E~.f-E».-£4 '.'?!.'E.-.LA-G_E  

  Duemsawnm Harm.  
 M'JL§.-1GA%':,.  _
 KGLAR m§3'i'121c::r.' ' -

 4. «     ...C30MPLAlNANT.

(By_Sri :'H  SH§VARAM_I, ADV., )

   ..... 

1. 1′.’-iCIW’A,
MAJG’R
THE’ FOOD INSPECTOR
.. ‘MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DlS’I’RlC’I’.

” R. SRINWASAIAH
THE TAHSILDAR VIDE ORDER
WJLBAGAL ‘T’ALUK, m’*.3o. lO.’2007.ACC2USED
MULBAGAL. Nos.1 AND 2 ARE
KOLAR DISTRICI’. DROPPED

‘ a£.jy,0sABH_ HIT Jfimade the following:–

3. D1′. VENKATESHAPPA M.

M.4.a.’Q!?, EXEC!.!’!’!’.’F. GPPECER
PRESENTLY WORKING AT

i-Li”) 1″.-‘\i.iJ’k’ F”fi\N’I’Cii-I’i\’Y”!’\”I”‘l~i,
MYSORE DISTRICT (PREVIOUSLY
WORKING AT MULBAGAL TALUKWV V
PANCHAYATH}

4.: SANJAPPA, V
MAJOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

MIJLBAQAL TALE .93..-ac-rJ..a~*»:;-;*:+0 , .
KOLAR DISTRICYP. .._AC.CiL1.SED 2
(By Sri: P G C cHE1§.–‘:7$__ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘

!.’§z’¥’–!.L!3.”[) 1113.11 65- 12 or THE
COf3’T’F:’nIiF”?.0’v.,OFi.4 COURT ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMFT P:éecEEn10Nes AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
FOR DlSOBEYIN(j.TH.E'”flvRDER D’I’D.l4.6.0fi PASSED IN
w.P.Nr)*;?739,I ~ _

This €’.”»-‘mist-,m.-it Case Cfifiiii’ ‘f1 f0’ ”

g-

ORDER.

l.t’:ii1bm1’ttr.ad by the-. learned cotmsel ;1pp¢:a__t_Ig .0-

to-‘~– —,;:I..p!..1….:_-….. .ha=.t they is cm-.~.p..:.=.nce ‘mm the order
prison”: uy thi” (“rift 111 ‘v’v’.’r’-‘. 1’\Io7″4″”-‘sG[%’.’!I”‘\ timed

14.06.2006 and the oomplamm ‘ t is not interested in

puratling the matter.

\_9J’

IV

-2. Having regattl to the facts of the cane the
circumstances under which dhobndicnoc is
G./xi A’\’lI–§.A;i’:d:V\ ‘W’\* “””‘

been committed by the II!!$.l]3OIl(!€.I1t»9.[Wi3 agtisjficgi that

then:-. is no willful disc!bex!icnocJ;:I§ the

Memo is alsq “to; wiihdmvw of the
complaint. Aoc’o1ttin4fil§n ‘ is dia1mar.u;*d’ .

V”

IIIIII