High Court Karnataka High Court

Dr Kemparaj vs Karnataka Lokayuktha on 11 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Dr Kemparaj vs Karnataka Lokayuktha on 11 June, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil
5 -wvarmalma urn Iwsrvwwu wwvw-sr~aI'«a"t ntauwwusua wnvwmMrnv.I:_ 'WIFE! I%w'1M\uurmnw"'»m"w"'a. wwwmw www W'M£'"Qfl'li'€M9'"Ill£€"'QG\l"9. IIIW-fill \-¢\lIu0r\fl 'lat! swwnaumnmmn FIIEJE1 Vohfikfiflfi Vi?' §%&"*%W!WWi§/5WW%#{ FWEQETH igpkjfléw.

xx $33 HIGH CSURE OF KARNREAKA AT zgfifihpcnn
snraa THIS THE 11" BAY or JUNE §§fi§ 1_
BEFGRE  ,1i "u 

THE HON'BLE HR.JU$TIGE m§K;é§::L},=_"
wax? PETITION Na.?g2(2§0é$¢x?KnA; a,T

BETWEEN:

Dr. KEHPAREJ _ ,
5/0 LATE TH%ME GQWnE
AGED 41 YEARS, '" T.-
LECTURER IN SURGER3_ V ,v;;u;
BANGALQRE H2B:cAL"cQ1L23fi_ANn_v

RESEARCHJIH$$ITGTE§v"
EANGALQRE _f_j" k*_

.. PETITIGNER

tBy 5zi:5 NKggar;_§3Vg§

ANu;:

1 Kfi3N3TAKA:LOK$YUKTHA
., axrngszuwzfi at xws REGI3TRAR
¢_ xx 3 BUxLEING
'2;gAn§ALsRgW"

"AbDI$iQfiAL REGISTRAR
"sfiguxfixms-as
,K§EfiATAKA LGKAYQKTHA
Hsamsaaaxs

':3

'u,,_3 "STATE 9? Knanmmnxn

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARX TO

HEALTH ENE FAMILY WEBEEEE DEPfifi$H3NT

VIKAS SOUDHR

EANGALQKE

... EESPUNEENTS
(By SKI. H SUDHRKER PR1, AfiV. FQR R.1&2
SRI.H.T.N%REHBRh PRRSAD, HES? FOR R.3)



THIS wax? ymzxrxw IS EILnp1 "usBwa
Afl2ICLES 226 AND 22? 02 THE coNsTIT3r:Qfi,0E
zunza PAYING T0 QUASH THE aanan PAS8EQg$Y,R;3

BEARING N0.341.EH€.2007 BaNG&@RE,"~EE$EEa
19.11.2

ao7 vxns aauaxung-9 AND ALSQ’A$EICLES”»

ox cnnaams EATED 24.12.2&0? VIBE ARfiE3UREéR}’

THIS WRIT .9ETIwz§H7 ¢efiifiG.«u$w P§a
?RELIHINARY HEARIN$’IN *af’sRoU@;rgxg may;

*’1\ mwwmé us’ mfiwmfiaflflm fllwifl €f;.;£.;¥E£AA;flTi”< E'§A¥€NA"¥'AKfl HIQH COUKV OF Wflfififirfiffififi FHGH COURT OF K&W%§§3'éflL£"1$3ra%& HEQH CGUR3" OF WRNATAKA HEGH C03}?

$32 caunm HADE THE FQ§aQRIE$:–

The A_ yetitianfifig ‘* &$$&iling

coz:ec:;:;.ie%a7;:%%. -§;t:.r:.V:3:.”esV..’1’:”‘*”2:iia.t:ec:3. 19.11.2ac’:

pasaed bf i fk§§@?§fifi§fifi fiiv No.3 in
Ne.3dlffifififé§C?¥ %@&a_ §§ne#§#e*P and also
Artialss 5: cha:§§s a§g§a 24.12.2907 Vida
Annaxu;$~R; $a§ §§e§$fi%ed the inatant Writ

?$titi6n.??’ .

2;xI hafié heard the learned Caunaal for

‘ %h§”p§tifibner ad the learned Government

é” °Pi§a§éz for reapandent No.3.

3. The learned Counsel for the

Jpetitionar has filed a mama aated 11.6.2009

I Hp\J’%I’tz.H ‘Null I”QJ”\lEi’fl-8″‘Qf£fi”%’&\l°”‘Ir. flfiflfieiyflk ‘8au’hn1’hfll%fl_ KKK IWeI”‘B«ll’\.iV&5f”‘W:.I$i§””‘>£i.’?«o3?”‘§< }i*?HflW:n$"k3-!§ "§nv'W1"Nu§'I\.€5 \'hiV"i§ I"®d"'IR'\.B'V'Info'?"'§£»"'\El\@"% 3¥&&'*9i'W5fi 'EYKJRE 'IJI I\l""O4I'\fi'.Q"\|fl",[\,fl" filfiwlfl WWWRI §¢_Jf'

duly signaaci by the patitizmex: stat5,m';j"'*T,§;hat

the petitiana: aeeka leave to wifihd;a§ §h§

Writ Eetitian an the ground }£fi§t_ the .

enquiry against him hag be§fi kith&rafifi fiy

thfi autharity.

fl. The Bt%§%mu§t fififi%”d;x fifié memo is
placed an ;ecerd¢ V b V 9 ‘

5 Vlfxrit Petition is
dififiiéfiéfi a; wfififiéxafig at the risk of tha
patit;énerz #fiéiV£hé. ccunsel appearing for
§§e pe%i§;§fie§}’:

.Ey¢id§red’§@carding1y.

s&%%
§u5L§§

RV’