High Court Karnataka High Court

Hanumanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Hanumanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

amen ms THE 1:?" DAY 0? JULY 2393" " 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUS"?'lCE"'1*£.K."--«§?A??;!§?fi*     .
wan' Pgjmore NO. ss21¢;%r2s 9s §__,«gEs% 1%  

BEEWEEN:

HANUMANTH
SIC}. MADAPPA mm
AGE 35 YEARS ' VA
R1€}.i»<UMS%,  
KUMSWVAEJEPCLJCE srxmosxs '- ._ .
WAi)i~TA§.UK,   * A
D¥ST.GULBARGA,     
  _ _ A _ ' P§:E'§'tTéQNER
{av 83:. §<AL.€Er.e:L;:LL._e:\'é¥i' é;»4Aéé?§r'.-i,; »§:3v.cscA*;E)"
AND  ««««   " "  Vv
1.

THE s’fATE~0:= s<fi§f%::~€AvT§és+iA"- '
REPRESENTED B'? :73 §.f:*E_CF2–ETAR\",

DEPT. OF H;_OME, . ,.

VIDHANA SOEJEEHA SA{\1G}3LU5?E.560 G81.

_ V 2. THE. éfisvpuw camexsstorqssmg

GL1L_E§AF?;£§AD§STRfCT;”‘ —–

»:3,u;.,”=3ARcAx _

3. %H£’s2s§iEa2:a4%*EV:x1é_§::r¢I oz-‘ F-*{}Li{3E,

GU-;.3,ARL;A”_oss”r~.§;cT,
<3;.;a.BAm3;g_ ' – v

.. RESPGMBENTS

" ' " '{3}? azmza. :<i;'a.%AR, ASA )

Wtfit

THiS WRET PET§"§'§{}N E3 HLES UNDER ARTECLES 226 AM} 227 {BF

T}H'E"CQNST1TUT¥ON OF Hfiéflffi, PRAYFNG TO QRECT THE RESP{'.'1§'~éQEN"£'S

T0 FEX THE HONORARiU?s'E FBXYABLE T0 'FHE PETETFONER EN

ACGQRQANCE wan-3 RULE '$8-E OF "EH5 KARNATAKA VELLAGE SEFENCE

PARTLES RULES, '3%5, EXTRACT OF WHKSH ES PROSUCED AT

petitiener Es workieg as Deiepethy £2': Kumei Wadi viiiage,

Gufibarge District sauce 23'" April 2002 as per theirT"'effic%aE

record and his name is found at Si,Ne/101

vitiege comes under their Rufai Peééce Stetiefy V':

Bet, petétéener has not p:'educeci=__eny..eiAe*:e1ef .deeumen£:eé*

correspondence or any eppiieaiéeev_eee§<in§"',1;ae.y§}je3e%%e€ '

heeorarium as permieeibie z_._1__:L%*':'%:-.'.e:**~.t_»§':e Kefeeteétie Vifiege
Defenee Parties Ruiee, ef redfesséng his

qrievancee befere tbe""ee-itzpeient etzéfieritiee, petitioner

has rue§'sezi:Af?e "«CeeA?tv' e'r%fi'~'p?eeented the instant wrifi
petitiee, " ' ' é

_ 3. heve'v*.Heer6';ieemed eeuneei appearing fer

pe';i'E§er3'er ezfwd i'e'e7Vf%éed Addiéienei Government Advocate

epfiee:fifi.g ':"er~ reependents.

4; ‘ carefui peruse! of the groande urged by

iee§neti=..ceeneel appearing for petétierzer in the writ

‘eetiiien, whet emerges is ‘that, petitioner has neither’

“eubmitted any representation nor made any

correspondence threegh proper channel as envisaged

under the Karnataka Viiiage Defence Parties Ruies.

Without redressing his grievances befare the a:2’£h0?_ities,

petitioner has straightaway rushed to this

presented the instant wrii petitian Theieforei arm:

View that the reiief sought for i:ie’§ii§;§i3″:ssfr

writ petition is premature _ii%_ natiiref Ho$i.?é:x:ér,A’ if; fhef

interest of justice and equity,’v’ti:.i._;év.’ writ iietifiiaii iéiifdisposed
of, permitting the ‘[.A*:r§:_.¥'{Vi’ii_cA)rie::V–_wifc:” his detaiiec!
representation tr; thei.i}«u:iisdi§t%§n_aiA.”::§i’iévpé’ient authority,
within fol§r..1}veL¥§§s;’_ fa*§a?i*rjA1’t!j!e giéiéiidfiféceipt 0? a aepy of
this ofderfi If eéiiiéifuiiijiegiiiééfiiaiioniappiication is made, the

competeni”*«aL:i:3’i:;3rityis ‘a:£ii*ected ta receive the same and

pass’asppropriatécmiér in accordance with iaw and in the

:iK§.rna*tai<a Viiiage Defence Pasties Ruies,

i965 gaiziflaxiiépese af the same, as expeditiousiy as

pqssiiaivag at any rate, within three months fram the date

"Ac§f":"'e€:eipt of representaiionlappiication from petitisner.

/._m__M…

5

5. Learned Adéiiicnm Government Advocate és_…___

permitted to We memo cf appmrance on behaff

respcnderzts within three weeks from today.

W