High Court Karnataka High Court

H N Chandrasekhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
H N Chandrasekhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE»

DATED THIS THE 15* DAY OF SEPTEMBER,   

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ;<gJI§s= T? 6u'L!I${1eT'A'L4'   « if 7

WRIT PETITION NOs.13669¥ 136.88 be 2010 {vr5 :\r'\'..--j.-.:~vT_/_§_V2_r.§'_3J) A

BETWEEN :

1. H.N. Chandrasekhar":  _ 

Age 50 years  -

S/o Nanjundaiah  '
Nanjundes_b.wa_Vra.Niliaya  _ 
9" Cross,SVaraSwat.h"i.puram_,  '
MaralurfTuCT'1«kU'f;'-.._ .    "

2. G.R;'"Bé's'a\i:arajuT~: '
Age,S3__\;ea'r-3.'-«.._    -- .

S/0 late G.' Tha«"'s«m'e.ia'h. ' 
No.50; Beilvakurajea ,\   '
2"" Link,'''«6"'''Cr0ssA~--V ' '
S1T"Layout;T_umkur.

V ,   Ahmed

 jAgee'*3»Oey'ea'rs:
._ "-"S/A0 "A/b';i»ui ¢$I':z:s'zid
AV4" Cross; Edga Mohaila
Tu  I'-. =

  ,S. Chéndrasekharappa

_ Age 50 years
"S/0 Shivashankaraiah



. rnku 

K)

Girinagara, Kyathasandra
Tumkur.

Thabris Ahmed

Age 52 years

S/o Akbal Ahmed

3" Cross, 53.6. Layout
P.H. Colony, Tumkur.

R. Gangaclharaiah
Age 68 years

S/0 M. Rajasekharaiah V'
Ashokanagara, 4"' Cross  
Tumku r.   

M. Shivanna
Age 68 years. V V
S/o late M.a'l'i'aVpf§3a 

Cheta na4..F2.ag§%jav_endra1Nilay-'  . A

Sri Ramanagara'--~l\leyv{'ji;ayeu':
Tumkur_~~._u :.   «-

Mujamc:    A
Age".51 years   T' 

S/0 late Mo ha mbaedli  d din

Suresh 'L-.ay'0uVtV 
Siadashivariagara

'f H  rasekharaiah
 'Age'v 4'9.,_ye.avrs

 ' S/o NaP.jufidappa

'Haiafnu-ru', Kasaba Hobli

Tu~mf<;_'Jr Taluk & District.

A   Pranesh
* -Age 45 years

S/o late M.V. Srinlvasa Murthy



16.

E7.

18.

19.

MV. Manjunathaswarny
Age 4}. years

S/0 M.G. Veeranna
Near Muslim Hostel

SIT Extension

Tumkur.

Viswashekhara R

Age 40 years

S/0 late H. Ramakrishnaiwah
Dibburu Mazare  
Bhangi §-lanumanthaiah's'Pa'I'ya
Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur. 
B.N. Rudresh

Age 45 years .

S/0 Narasaiah  "

R/o Beer_an'a_Ksalluizvitelefge  ' A'

Swa n d ejia h<'5;¥'iVi ._PO.Sf '  _
TumkL"Jr-    *

PIJ'€téTiE'n.g'é:.iahA   
Age 40 yVea.rs._  '   -
S/'0«Kem';3aiah°=. 
Katt:*gensaha'l.|E ViLIiag"e,_ '
Kora Hobli .   

éfmmkur Ta|y'k' & District.

s. ea5gaaharaiah

A essAge'45s«z_ears
._  VS/o.'SEddep*pa
A' 'Uppe'ra_h3!|i, Tumkur.

  (By S;r'i~I5atet D Karegowda, Adv.,)

. ["F"e,t3t1oners



AND:

 

1. The State of Karnataka
Rep by its Secretary
Department of Revenue
M.S. Building
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangaiore~O1.

2. The Inspector Generai of
Registration and Commissioner:  
of Stamps, No.72O 1
Shimsha Bhavan, 8"' Block
Jayanagara, Bangalore.  .

3. District Registrar  _ -. ,_ 
Tumkur District, Tumkur.  _  ';;Re.s;30ndents

(By Sri Narend ra Prasafld

These~~_writi:.;petitionsa'--r6_.,fiie,d under Articles 226 and
227 of"the..{;?onst}ituti'on"' of I_nd'ia, praying to quash the
endor'sement'dated<3'Q.,,3;.2__U-1O vide Annexure-B issued by
R3 anclretc. '   .~
_ These. writ',-_ pe_titi~ons coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day the Court made the foiiowing:-

ORDER

._ I’n.7″_av,|_’| tiiése writ petitions, the petitioners ciaim

toebeV’-.’the”;stamp vendors and licence was issued to

it ‘them tinder the Karnataka Stamp Act and Registration

uififieied Writers Licence) Ruies. The case of the

J;

-6.

petitioners is that they are Deed Writers. Since they
satisfy the criteria under the provisions of Rule
3(1)(iia) of the Registration (Deed Writers

Ruies, their iicence was renewed by paying;’_:’p’re.scr;V’b:ej_d«_

fee. But however, pursuant to the;corrijrnyu’n:icaVtion”~ it

issued by respondent No.3 t’hei::j”!i’ce’n.ce.’

cancelied. Aggrieyveidyy ._ saiidi”

endorsement/communicatio.n;.V:y”vv._the petitiyowners are

before this Court.

.2*.i*”Ti’i’.?xi:’i’su:’i3§:§ect~.’.rnatte’r’~of”%these writ petitions is
covered ” of this Court in
wiv.N1%o.uiasya,/2po1o«,.idetided on 13.4.2010.

_fif4$’i..Ay.Fo’i’i–owing the reasoning stated therein, these

~w’ri_t«pét’i’tiior’i~s”‘aiso stand disposed of, i.nasmuch as the

pe.t’itio”ns “stand rejected.

_7_

4. It is aiso brought to my notice that the
aggrieved by the order of this Court, some of the

petitioners are before the Division Bench of thisfjcourt

by way of writ appeals. indeed, the

Court in the present proceedingsflshali V.

the decision to be rendered thee.L3itk’is’.io.r§”-¥§>e%f:-c_h’2of

this Court in writ appea|s,”iV/_i_/higzh
Writ petitions stand disposed of’a’ccordi7ng!y.

Mr.Narendra Prua;-‘;«a~d,”~cleiarvniedi%itj»GVP is permitted

“‘c1s:/n1i_.-~