High Court Karnataka High Court

I M Sambal vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 15 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
I M Sambal vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 15 January, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit


:3: THE me:-2 C€)UR’l” 0? KARNAfI’Ai1L& AT’ .

mrrmn “ram ‘£’HE 15th nzwwgref Janzisaijn 250$-,>_ u ‘V

Ppgmsmifr

THE HOIWBLE Iififi. 10.13. nzrigxgimfi, (::+:V:V:Ifi=::.,I.:;r;s *If§ic E:! >

% L
TI:-IE 1~£or:*BLE}:§::R.a’fisg§:fiE_§;e.$ABI§A§£iT
Writ Léeati-z:io:a_§ o.A. «S-KAT}
L.fs§.Samba.}L ‘ h 4

Chiaf Gfl”:-_r:A¢:r, ”

R] 0. Sa;1a}ag:e.=,.. f’fFal”:.iE§:é ‘C_hLk 1&i, _

District V’BeZg;11m:;–” , _» V’ V . : Petitioner
(33; Sri. C:”1E.*,11;{i£’E11:«I§’?i’3’IVfi:’i.V}*§.’..%:3’Q:fiii;ay, Advocaftz}

And: ”

.3*::e.s5t.%:2x==””a=:€«_§<an:a:a;<a,

' ,Rk;:-p.[ i:%.y'it§=;'vVS:ée1Etar}*,
i;)§fI"§'3gCAil1.I:}';'vilCIi§fJ}fi3i"n€I1t Deparimem,
"Vi(Zha;1a*S§;eu:ihaa, Bangaiore-560 0131.

Cgmmissionez’,

A Belgautfk District; Belgaumw

, Rfiathad,
“S/t:). Ramaiah. Maihaé,

V Aged about 51 ycarg,

” Chief Gfiicazg “‘F’own Panchayai Sadalaga.
Tahik Chikkoéj, Belgaum Iihistrict, : Respondénis

{S11 Gi_ri3h S giainbagi, fisdvocate for R3,
811 B; Veérappa, G0vetr11m€;1t fisdvocatfi for R4 35 2)

3

2
Writ gxatition filffd under Amcies 226 8:. 227 of {he
Constittltieu sf Endia prajging to quash fhe iatezim ordsqr dated
()?’.C31.2{}{)9 passtad in Appiicaticn No.93] 2009 E3}; the Kaiiiataka
Admirlistratives Tribunal, Bangakzre.

This Writ petitian coming up for preiimhlaza; fiiié

day, the Court deliverari the ;f0}.}w:i3:1g;–
JUDGMEN:+§;’ . .

(Daijivered by P. Cd’ 2

The petiticner is the .’:’:f&;;;31ioatioIV1
929.95; 2009 before the g (:;:u;:1is:£§;£:v§ Tribunai,
Bangalore. The No.3 herein) has

chaflenged the :i’ai1§ f*:r cgrde-_::’ issued by the:

State of
2′ fiasged iumxjm oré£e1* in the said

appiicatéon ai1d”?he:~;a:n€ ‘.rEzid as zmdtzr:

the learned cozmsei for 111%
“ap;}IEca;1t anti the leashed Gavemmant
* «PIeadg1_%.; Caveator is absent. Proxy
‘s.:?5(3~11:j_$é:1 for Caveator prays for pass over.

. request is mjectads

. _ In LANG, 3559108, this Tribzznal
” has passed an {)I’d€I” on 03.11.2008 with
certain directions to the Cadre évianagament
Authezéty to grass apprcapriatst omfcr. it is
submitted by the Iearnczd ceunsel far E216
Appiicant that {$16 31*’ respendent has mm

71

flied any Review petition and the applicant-‘–.._
has not been hfiard by tha (EMA ¥:)efo1fe»._
yassing mfier as in A11ne:><11re–A3s §-Eers"r_:e,"-. "–._
we find that there is a ?I'ima facie caS€j.""* « f '

issue emergent notice ._
msp:;:mcien1:ss–1 65 2. Se_:*.zi::*.e_: cl"1z=,LrgeS" 'tcfigbé
paid in thfi' afiice Withzingtwo da§,7s;.:_ '1If'paidV,V _ A
. issue noticc, failing which agdplication
stands dismissed without fi1rL1er 0rdi*+;r.'s." '

The impugned"vL«¢:§ftier b€VarjngT Péo. '$33,
A-a, E. 89 TME 20{)8..V(i3haga–i2–«__ dmed
03.5}/2OC#§ V;ja<ssed«VA'bj? "':117:: fi.ii$t respémiient
Vidé Ann&x11I1:%_«aA3 is ::§s1'a3«9Lr5»:'i'v1:iA}J;+28.(I}1,2Q()9
30 far as the app£iésimt_._ the thin':

rt:3p0n.d€nt concézfmed.

{A ” ‘ ~ L139; fi;: s.;~g1se_on 2′?m.20@9″
3, Sfgilfifi’ t}1isV{x>’3’§j’i. fjéffifioii is againsst the ilfififitll orfiar aiazeé

{}?.{}1.}’7GLG9 s”i:2;:~i:iIlgwvii1e “.o£a’m~ o:f€.rai1sf=3r «dated {}3.G1.2GO9 rm

nsxt’-id;EaH;’-L0:”v~–1:€:a1’iiig””‘i;é., 28.€§)§.¢200§, the apiaropriate tamed};

Eéftitifiolléf hereixz is to f}.€ his statement of

b§e;cfi€;ns,_ gipjgzyiibatiaza for advancement of the {raga alrang with an

“a jpp1icatir3i1′;. far vacating the i3:1<.:e:rim ordar igaf stage; dattd

We do not find any gmd grounds to modify' the

order yasgsd by {$13 Tribuna} axial csnsequentiy, the writ

"*.§ gt:z5.o:; is liable :0 be dismissed.

Accordixlgiy, thus: Wm, petfibn is (iimissed.

Tribunal is directed in expedite I;eaIi11_g:(3f1§}1e u u

ff
INnax– Y§£s,.:_N:g>’

vie;