High Court Karnataka High Court

K M Siddappa S/Omaribasaviah vs Deputy Commissioner Hassan … on 17 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K M Siddappa S/Omaribasaviah vs Deputy Commissioner Hassan … on 17 April, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil
IN 31$ HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT' BANGALORE W,P.N0. 9443 of 2009

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARMA TAKA A T BANGALORE

DATED THIS '§'HE 17TH DAY 012' APREL, :2:}:39. _:'T..,_

BEFORE   _%  __
"ms :-:o~'BLE MR. JUSTICE :v.5.4%T;;z,' 77.]:  J

W.P.NO. 9443 OF g§)o9i%r'(3VM-:>D§3=   'A 7

BEFWEEN

-2 KM ssomppa AGED ABEDUT-.55=YEARS  
SIC) MAREASAVEAH  _ -~
mo KHTANAKEREFJILLAGEV.------- _ "
KANAKATTE HOBLI'    .
ARSEKERE TALUK   _ I
HASSAN Dasraacr

_ __ _ _ . V_  PEWFEONER
{By S-Sré: H R \g;:~i:}--;~w;é.s~é,a__rrH,  AD£<.c3 CATE)}. V " 'V 

AND : 

E  1 DE'PUTY ¢ e'&&M4tss:'dmTE';e-- HASSAN memes?
HAs3AN~_ *'~ *,'v.~

2 THE'TAH$%LD!§R7, 
 » .ARS1KEF-?E'E'RLUK -
. Aasixeae  A V _
' 1,?-4,A$$AN £)£STRB';;'F

'  "vF;<:m::%.t§a;<39EcToR

X vv.F4{ANGE'TQEF'ICE {BF FOOD 3: CSVH. SUPPUES
A738?-KEF?.E TALUK
E~iASS{§\N E}!STR¥C'F

4 .. THE S3-EERASTHEDAR
.f§i§NGE OFHCE SF F009 8: CNR. SUPPLEES
ARSVKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRECY
 RESPONDENTS

__ ism Hff. NARENDRA PRASAD HCII5? FOE-'E RESPQNDENT8)

IN TE-E HIGH COURT OF KARNATRKA RT BANGALORE W.P,N0, E3443 sf 200?'



IN TI-E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE. W.?.N0. 9443 Of 2969

-2-

THES WP. $8 FRED UNDER ARUCLES 226 AND 22? 0? THE

CONSTITUTEGN OF iND3A, PRAYWQ TO QUASH THE MPUGNED QREDER
PASSED 8'! THE ST RESPONDENT DT. 20.2.2009 VIBE Ai*~iNEXURE~B.

THIS WP. CONHNG ON FOR PFEELEMiNARY HEARING THIS BAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWWG:

:ORDER:

The petitioner, sssailing the eorreot;iees’_~’..oi«’

order dated 20″‘ February 2009 pessed in is

eAHiFoP:A2o:2oo8–o9 vide Asss;s;s.s,hss iprsssni-so

this writ petition.

2. Learned G.evernrseritv._ P«.§eeder’–ve_pp.earing for

respondents, at that, the prayer

seught isriiiiisyispstizasnsi iisbis to be dismissed as not
maintain:-xhie,v »*si:i’fsstantiste his submission he

th’st;–sV:vvvp_etitioner has got speedy, inexpensive,

‘ V.Veifeoti.y’ei efficacious alternative remedy by way of

.’redressieVg__his grievance before the competent authority,

as ‘;}ro:vided under the relevant provisions of the

vifisjrnataka Esseniiei Comrrzodities (PBS) Controi order,

___5’i 9921′ and without exhausting the said siternative remedy

eveiiabie to him, he cannot sintain this writ petitien .

~….__…,,,M,_,n_M__,_______M_N__*

EN TI-$ H’I{}I~E COURT OF §§_ARNA’?AK.A AT EANGALORE W.PiE’-is; 9443 sf 2009

IN THE HXGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE, W.P.I’é’o. 9443 of 2089
-3-

3. in the light: of the submission made by learned

Gevernrrzent Pleader appearing for respondents and after

careful peruse! of the prayer sought by petitionerf”p:’i.r:t”‘this

writ petition, it emerges that, in fact, petitieneriiritisseihhvgeti

speedy, effective, efficacious e’itern’etiye re«rriedy_’by way T. V

of redressing his grie\(a_ncev”‘befdre “c’oinpetente

authority, as provided ur2der’i’s..:”ifTi’e reieiient_”:prevVi’s§idns of the
Karnata ice Esser:tis!:4_{‘t’-?iI_’1iS)’ vvtldntrei order,
1992. Therefore, f-rsrrit.Vi.fi’ed by petitioner
to the petitioner to
redress” the eppropriete competent
eutheritj/L; seVxed’ifi’s_ed:–“6r if need arises.

gfleteernediiiiGevernment Pleader is permitted to fiie

“eppjearance for respondents within four weeks

{rem

Sd/-

Iudge

tsm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE WAPSVEQ $3443 of 2969