High Court Karnataka High Court

K Sumithra vs The Office Of The Commissioner on 5 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K Sumithra vs The Office Of The Commissioner on 5 January, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath


‘ V Ai>H:3’*»: ” ” ‘A

…1…

IN THE HIGH Comm’ 012′ KARNATAKA AT

DATED THIS THE 5TH may OF;TAN’LfA:%3§’,’ 2éC§i% ” Q

THE HON’BLE MR.Ji;3’STI(V34§3§'{;€3;\z’I M,’ALfMA’IvTiA”‘vv %V _
WRIT’ PETFPION 13:0.157.9%’Q¥«~2oo$(LB–B:vfP–REs)

BETWEEN 1

1 S;fit.K_:-S§}M¥PH’RP;_ ‘
_ w_1 V ” « .

AGEi3v5*ABC)UT43?’YEARS
‘r..Rf(;3 Ni} 15 1;»,s’1″;<;:T0R 2
2+r_MT coVL:3fw~% *
BA§JG'ALO_RE3.~55€€; 031. PE'm'I0NER

'c.

gaév Sr: ; M “B.H_A_C~:-WAT, ADVOCATE)

*1*1~3;’a: QFFICE OF’ mm COMMISSIONER
V_BAN .{3ALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
4% BANGALORE-G1.

“REprD. BY commzgmmgg.

#3

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTWE ENGENEER
HEEBBAL SUB DIWSION WARD NO 91
BANGALORE MAHANAGAR ?ALIKE
BANGA.LORlEJ~O1. (L

3 Sri <3 GOPAL "

NO 1434, 2ND MAIN, MANORAYAN mmarr
R T NAGAR, BANGALORE. , V V V
R13)SP(i3i~’«-Z*–‘1f}E3__’_1\£”1’..*”‘.:”§_”
(By Sri: S M CHANDRASHEKAR, ADvoc;x:r11:,%Trrr =
FOR R1 8291??)

–o–0–e;~

THIS WRIT PE’I’I’I’ION I$’*.Fi:.{;El§ :

TO SE’I’–AS1DE THE IMPU{}N’Ef}._ORDER”I}f?,’_ :23.:’5′:2<30~::
IN M13313/20053 PASSEE) Byr '}'-.I7:IE) '=APP15LLA'r"e:
TRIBUNAL AND REMIT _MA'}"i'ER' FOR FRESH

ms 0N F012 HEARING THIS
DAY, THE.fLG:'.£J'R?* .T}«IE,.%FQLLOWING: –

WSORDER
T1*.¥,_{3 pve{iti<a5n';3r.:'$;3éks to set aside the: order dated

V:;::3_-$42005 Miscellaneous N0. 13/2:305 passed

' 33.13,; t§re.K:-érjaataka Appeflate Tribunal, Bangalore.

H.S.BhagWat, learned counsel appearing for

the gfétifioner submitted that the Advocate appearing for

' x petitioner before the Tribunal mat with an accident

on 18–}.1–20()4 and hence couid not attend to the case

when the matter was taken up far final censi ration.

/V…

-3-

He submits that the Medical Certificate haVsVVi.t>iiso been

produced for consideration of ‘the ‘i’I’i_.b_tir1e.;1’v:~ ‘the

same has been negatived. E-Ierjtce, .

3. I have heard _ the i:i’ietirried

petitioner.

4. The the order has

referreti petitioner herein had
a1:a-jeetiteciwi.5if;.i1:g.§ei1″.ci1..i_’n1ore 8 occasions prior to the

acci::ie1iét.-i :_i”?i§ierefore, the Tribunal hat} no other

zgiterriativeiflexcepiti to pass the impugied order therein.

” “it thereefter that the Miscellaneous Application

it filed by the petitioner seeking to recall the

‘order. a

5. It is an admitteé fact that the petitioner
abssemed himself on more than 8 occasions prior to the
accident. Everi the Medical Certificate produced by him

does not induce any ccrzfidence in the mind of this

94-