High Court Karnataka High Court

K H Shivalingappa S/O Honnegowda vs The Assistant Registrar Of … on 1 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
K H Shivalingappa S/O Honnegowda vs The Assistant Registrar Of … on 1 October, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A'? BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13'? DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
PRESENT

'THE HON'BLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JL;sfP£§: g§ A' 

AND

THE §~ION'BLE MR.JUS'¥"£CE';:;4$:.:B-;3PANSA§;: =  T_ 

W1'*itPetiti0n No.3029Q,i21o10{cS:;REs~?1L) "   %

Between :

1. K H Shivaiingappa' .,
s/0 Hoxmegewda " 'M _T  
Aged about  y€:a1's_._   V

2.   
W / ::ivvPa:*Jat}1&:g«{>jWda Q ~ -  __
Aged' about   ._ . é ' 

3. SmtR€-fiiuka  A %
w_I(3 Bhaxifiamuayakv

 V.  , fXgC;e:(;.._aba}1t 45 

%_  VS':;1t§;'E%"e;§:§a-yathi
~. W?/0 'V'siSe;:2§rjkxnna1'
Afigeclvalgfiut 40 years

..   SI;ii;.V]§S3agarathna W/O Lokesh
V'  ' 'Aged about 32 years

3; 

 'Sim: Grzetha W/G Basavaraju
 Aged about 40 years

  ~  Smt Hernavathi

W/0 D.Mai1esh,
Aged about 32 years



8. Smt Savithramma
W/O Sridhar
Aged about 48 years

A1] are 1*/<3 Adaguru Kodihaily Village
Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk
Hassan District

(By Sri I) C Jagacieesh, adv.,V)
And : '

1, The Assistant Registrarwef "  
Co--operative Societigese  if g  AA 
Sakieshpura Sub~Diirisir)i1'   
Sakieshpures  --   
Hassan District  

2. The M'ana'gi»:ig'Diréé'mi'  
I*ias§ari'~13'i5;Ei7i,<.':t  " 
P;g50duCe'15s_C0?V'aOp..< Fedelation Ltd.,
 T},  District", Hassan

3. Sim Mehafi 
,v:--/ 0 Shia*egow'da'-
g '~'Age::1 about-"~§{)___3{ears
 Chief Promoter

' ' ~ . Ad;g:gu:i1i"{<odihaH3: Viilage

" . . ""*Be1u{--"T1fa:§;uk, Has-sax} District

A' - Biria,tiétia11i».Iriobii

... Respondents

 " '=. "{By_SI:i'B:asavaraj Kareddy, Pr1.G.A. for R4)

_   -'This wrii petifion is filed under Articles 226 and
 " 2:27 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 1st
 "';"esponde11t to consider the representation of the

 petitioners vicie AI'1I1exures--A and B feifixwith in

accordance with law.

  



WWW

This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, Chief Justice made the following :

ORDER

J.S.Kheha1′, CR}. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners stai.es,.
petitioners will be satisfied, if the
disposed of, with a direction to

decision on the representation filed by”‘the’Apeti{ioIiers on V

28.7.2010 (A11nexure§A}– :t;g=.%%z;6:;qéd 1.g;l.é1ted 30.7.2010

N01. On our asking,
Mr.Bas;¢;a;_araj ‘1eér’:1ed Principal Government
Advocate accepts on behalf of respondent No. 1.

= Lee1’ne”d’?ri11cipa} Government Advocate for

I€.o_}~1 states, that he has no obgection to the

o1’Wi.he irlstarit writ petition, in terms of the

prayer-v.t.iiade by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. in View of the above, without going into the

__r.§1e.im raised by the petitioners on merits, we consider it

just and appropriate :0 dispose of the ifls1:ax1t__.__writ

petition, by directing respondent No.1 to

decision on the representation dated-jg:”28.:?’;:§O ”

(AI1I1ox11I*e~A) and legal notice »._Adaiédr f§(}¢§’.?Q}{}.,A

(An:aexuro~B), by passing V a –

order, within two months frosxfixsthe “da1.;e-.of_:récVéipt ‘of a

certified copy of this o1′{1_er.

Disposed of in ”

Sd/-

Chief Justices

Sd/-.

Judge

lndsxz yes/4i:1o