High Court Karnataka High Court

Jothi N.Sreenivas Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Jothi N.Sreenivas Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
WP N0.65888!2009

1
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARDEATAKA
CIRCIHT BENCH AT EEARWAD .
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER, 
BEFORE % 'V 'L 'T %
THE I-ION'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.  3  "
WRIT PETITION No.65Ss::8E/2§§694"EI§ELC§ 4'  ':1, X  E. E Y'
Between: A " 'V '. V A

SMTJOTHI N.SREEN1vAS GowDA.._ ' _

w/0 N. SREENIVAS GOWDA 

AGE:4o YEARS  5 

SREE VENKATESHWARA MANDL  

R/O KOTTUR "  , j'  
DTBELLARY.      I EETITIONEH

(By Sri.(}ang:a1:I'i'tia;_1_r1:AI;I#,;.}_L*_f£.",   if}
And:

1. THE S'1jA*1'E OE KARNATAKA
Rl3_3PRES'['.N'I'ED E'; ITS SECRETARY
.. «DEPARTMENT OF' CO--OPERA'I'ION
._ V.  M.S-H.VBU{LDING; """ '"
' v ., _B.A_NGALO RE.

 ._  frHEi"L\.:REfC§'oR

_  AGRI.CULTURE MARKETING
 BI-IAVAN ROAD
B;§NGALORE--560 001.

A 53. A.  SECRETARY

V  AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
KOTTUR
BELLARY DT.  RESPONDENTS

WP No.65888/2009

(By Smt.I{.Vic1yavathi, AGA for R1 and 2,
Sri.Ma1likarjun C.Basareddy, Adv for R3)

This petition is filed under articles 226 and 227′

Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in th;e”‘najtu__re’ _»_0I’~.
certiorari quash the resolution dt.10.06.2008 videj AnVn.eXure:A’g V’ ‘
issued by 3″‘ respondent so far as the petitioner _i_’S~.C()”1′,1:l.’J\’3._I’I1€d’

and etc., –

This petition coming on for pre1i’inin–ary”fVhearing;

the Court made the following:

onnrikif e
The petitioner is thins ip’r=aying foruvquashing
the impugned orderV_dated_1_ “A” on the
file of the 3″‘ in favour of

the petitioner; 2 if

2. iearried’oo«unseiIi’–foir…the petitioner submits that the

petitioner pure.hased’._sit.e and also executed lease cum sale

“Vdeed 1__1/1998′. Since respondent No.3 has not

provided “i_nfrastructure inasmuch as road, drainage, water

supp1jf’tetc,ithe__ petitioner has not constructed a shop«cum-go-

‘down. if £.)nA.;the other hand, respondent No.3 has passed the

iiirnpugiatedfiorder forfeiting the site allotted in favour of the

lgjfgetitioner. It is contentteithat the impugned order has been