V' T_ THE ENIIIRONMENTAL OFFICER
A (BY SRI S N PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV.
FROFRIETOR KARNATAKA JYOTHI SWEETS
NO. 24, am CROSS ROAD
KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA,
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE -- 550 023 ...FErITfiIONERS
{BY SR1 A K VASANTH & M K GIRISH, ADVS.)
D
I THE COMMISSIONER I.
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA FALIRE
NR. SQUARE "
BANGALORE 'I
2 THE HEALTH OFEICER {WEST}
BANGALORE MAH.A'NAG'ARA PALIKEG
BANGALORE " -
3 THE IIEALfI*H__MED'ICAI;;OFFICER V" 1'
BANGALOR;F;.I-;srIAI~:.ANAGARAV_FALIKE
CB1IG>E1E__ RARGIE_; "
BANGALORE ' " "
4 THE KARNATAKA 'STATE _
FOLLUTION'jCQNTR_OL. BOARD
NETHAJI SUBASH --.CfIAl\IDRA BOSE
BUILDING (PUBLIC 'UTILITY BUILDING)
V GANL'_HI"ROAD
G, BAN GALORE
_ BY ITS
;KARI\.IA'{TAKA STATE POLLUTION
I ' CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICER
BANGALORE NORTH, NO.133/1
OFF. TO K.L.E. COLLEGE GROUND
A. Dr. RAJAKUMAR ROAD
" RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS
FOR C/R1& R1–3.
SR1 H C SHIVARAMU, ADV. FOR R1 TO 3
SR1 MUNIYAPPA, ADV. FOR R1 8: 2
SR1 MRIGANKA PRABHAT, ADV. FOR R4
SRI S G KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R4 81 5}
W
THIS VVRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH VIDE ANX. F, F1. F2. F3 DATED 14.01.2003 BY R2
RESPECTIVELY ISSUED TO ALL THE FOUR PETITIONERS
AND DIRECT THE R2 AND R4 TO CONSIDER 7..TI{E
REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY THE
AN D CONDIMENTS MANUFACTURING’ – I. ”
THIS WP. COMING ON FOR
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FVOLLOVVINHCH
I0RDEa
J.S.KHEHAR. C.J. Iora1):t I ”
In spite I’e.¢t_£In._;jIt _tlIe .1’né:t’a’i91t writ petition is mm
filed asVVfaIH learned counsel for
the pet.itioners’I’rfontendti”that. the petitioners have an
appellate “rerIIedjk the impugned orders dated
‘_ (AnIIext1res F, F1, F2 and F3). As such, it is
‘snbmittedt.:tlIat_the petitioners may be permitted to
ufithdlratv t’h_eIp’rinstant writ petition, so as to enable them
Auto attailtthel appellate remedy, subject to the condition,
A ‘*:Cf”‘that”~«_.the respondents do not contest the issue of
rngaintainability of the alternative remedy on the plea of
limitation.
IvI3IIrI.O:~1E–Rsu
THROUGH THEIR ASSOCIATION DATED 9.8._::002VV»..ANt)
14.08.2002 VIDE ANX. A AND B AND DIRECT THEJVM-ITO”:
ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO CARRY OUTf1:H;_Ié:IR SWEET”
V “rVindex:Y/it
4
2. Learned counsel for the respondents states,
that they will not oppose the claim of the petitioners, if
they avail of their alternative remedy on the
limitation. .4 V 4 4
3. In View of the above,
is dismissed as withdraW11_,_.V
petitioners to avail off their Viéiafipeiiate”rernnedvfg under
Section 444 of the Karnatak’a’Ei’.7Iu.riiei’p41’Corporations
Act, 1976.
€'igo_t»w:o w_o,. Sd/_ "" ._ Justicg Sd/-- JUDGE