IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE R.P.M0.334:'%
1
{N THE HKBH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS ms 23% mat on snnEmE&..VV3§\§%V:,,
aspen: L %
ms Houma am. JUSTIC-E"'N;--K.l§£§T!t;" f %
mg: zflgox Ng,gg_5""" 'er @4" % A
cm MUNICPAL couucst'
SHIMQGA cm
SHIMOGA V -
BY ITS CGMN1£_S€£<_3NEE'< '
(By Sri ; B B Ba§J§N?§§i§V_ADVOi'4:§T;'E3~
Am; .... V VV .,
sun H'SJAYAMMJK.
wrom"-5 KNARA$£iMH'A__
AGED'z\B0lJT6#1YEAR$V ~ .
RIOKAQEDA1'. V
;'SH!!sROGA L:-zsmcr '
""" " 'V RESPONDENT
flit’?
‘- . ‘ Tais r§;e:mEw”PET:T1oN IS FILED mo 4? RULE 1 0? cm. PRAYING
FOR”‘~REV_1_+EW.V ms omen (men 24.<13.2ooe PASSED IN WP
_ V QM "mt.-: FILE as THE HONBLE mu com? o1= KARNATAKA,
" v &.NGALORE.
“ms REWEW psrmon comes on FOR omens, was DAY,
” V V’ M: coum MADE THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATARLA AT BANGALORE R.P.Ncv.334?2G03
paragraphs 2 to 4 by the review petitioner cannot be
accepted not the same inspires the confidence of__the
Court. Hence, in View of not explaining the
satisfactorily with cogent reasons, the
l.A-lI2008 filed by review petit§oner’«ie”–«l’liai’§le¥’
diem:ssed’ as misconceived and
is rejected.
4. However, irtmthe Wee, I have carefully gone throughvAfl1e_erclef this Court in the writ fme of the said
order that, for the review petitioner has
made ootreznyv to mtertein the instant
revieef ‘Vpetition,’ distance of time. That too, the
(petitioner in writ petition) has been
since 1995 to get justice and
Qehe dragged on from pillar to post. Therefore,
‘ fe-oneeguent to the rejection of the l.A.ll2008, the review
” ‘petition filed by review pefitioner is also liable to be
/
/
IN 3312 HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE R.P.No.334i2ih@
IN THE HIGE COUKF OF E5g&TAKAAT ficg fl R.£.No33_@Q§
5
dsmissed as méscmceived Accomlingly, it is
bath on the gomd of delay and lashes as wgEI:A”:§%__Vj:. .
merits
BMV*
9%’ THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE R.}3.No.334i’20£B