IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUSTI'C2OSg&:RIS
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BCC)-1:_v'AA13x3r\.IVI'I1:A:"C'A:..,A.T
WRIT PETITION No.3d8:é'-ISOEAC20T0SSV(CSS:REAS)
BETWEEN:
1.
'. LL59 "
GOPAL GANGADRAR"RATI'_L j' '
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, V -
occ: AC{RIC;I5LTURIS'["" A
R/O (_3Hf_3'UD.ALLI\ZI.LLAGE; .
MUNDAGOD TAI.U_KCf> A'
U.,K.S.DI'STRI'CT.._ A. ' ' "
YELLAPRAV ff» ~
S /0' KADA.1?PA_'GU'D__I"
AGED ABOUT 40 ~'zE;«\RS
_ R/0 ARAS1--z.INAG.ERI
.. MUNDGOD..TALUK
I2«ISTRIcT""
j SSAISIN-APPAT
' S/'o'_~vRAI2_ASAPPA
AGED ---ABOUT 45 YEARS
R',/AO 'CI--IIGALLI
MUNDAGOD TQ
C' ~ U;K. DISTRICT
THAJUDDIN
R/O MOHAMED YUSUF MAKANDR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
$
an-'I
"O
l\)
R/O MUNDGOD TALUK
U.K. DISTRICT
GI-IOUSUSAB
S / O IMAMSAB MALLIGAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O MUNDAGOD TQ
U.K. DISTRICT . fi..;f_pETITI'ORE-RS V
(BY SRI ANANT R. HEGDE, ADi,',__,)1"--_TV
THE STATE OF I<ARIf\:ATAKA. f ~ ,
REPRESENTED BY CI5IIEE.,S»EACRET-gum,
AMBEDKARVEEDI... A * ._
BANGALORE '
ASSISTANT RE(,'rISTR_A1?_ O-F H »
CO~OPER}A'1'IVE"SQVCIETIE-S " '
SIRSI SUB D'IIIIS1O.N.__
S.._IRSE~_S8£3,~?rOt1'3V.V . '
MUI;DGOD.,TA.I;U';RESENTED"'I3Y
_ MANAGE,R
*SUBHASH'_;WADDAR
'-_rAGEID__ABOUT 40 YEARS
PEERAPPAOOWDA MAYAPPAGOWDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
OCC: PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN
._ T" MUNDGOD TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
" MARKETING CO--OPERATIVE SOCIETY
MUNDGOD
U.K. DISTRICT--581349 RESPONDENTS
IE
‘5:
(BY SRIYUTI-IS VIDYAVATLK HCGP FOR R1 81, R2, I
R.I\/LKULKARNI FOR R3, F.V. PATIL FOR IMPLEADIN,G’~,_
APPLICANT, ADVS.,) ‘I —
THIS PETITION IS FILED II1\ID’EI2 y_ ARTICLES 226 ‘S
227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA PR’AYIN»(}’~TC’
IMPUGNED RESOLUTIONS PASSED “BY R’E_SpPONDENTS’–,Vp
D’I’.18/8/08 AT ANNExURE’nS_,’—DT.22’/S/OSAT 1i’I«NN.EX–URE~~..’
C, D’I’.26/8/08 AT ANNEXURJ§¥D_ AND. I13T:15′;f:9/Os AT
ANNEXURE—E.
THIS PETITION oo’M’ING_<3I§I EVORORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE. FyO~LLOW,1No-:v 'V
Aeltvoeatet to accept notice for
respontietnt i;r1've"rr'IerrIo of appearance within
a period offour' ' ~ " < 2
Tho1;1gh petition is listed for hearing on
applications, it is Seen that by the very
doeI1ment'T;:'I:Ied upon by the proposed respondents which is
at AfInei~xure — R2 namely the resolution (it. 24.7.2009 the
sprayer made in the present petition has become infructuous.
' 'E1: is further brought to the notice of this Curt by the learned
$
,5.»
Q
counsel appearing for the proposed respondents that the
said resolution dt. 24.7.2009 produced at Annexure—-___– R2
aiongwith their application has already been question"
the Deputy Registrar for Co–operative it
which is the competent authority. v.Si'r1cepth7e
same by the competent authorityi':'wo:uldii reisolfiie. the"
between the parties this Court does not propose toi'az3rJert to" V
the merits of the Contention. "questionsiarisingi between
the parties are left open' the appropriate
forum and the"present""pe§tition*.._stan§lis»'ii disposed of as
infructuous.» No __
Sd/.;
Judgei