-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGADORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST _
BEFORE _ ' ' L. A
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I*ICI§; AJIT _
WRIT ?ETIT ION NO.2486:9_
BETWEEN
M. MUTHYALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS _
S/OCHIKKABORAIAH
R/O MUDDENAHALLIAVILLAGIE "
MADHUGIRI
TUMKUR f
TUMKUR-; ' »
' 5 ' PETI'I'I()NER
(By AD_-VII
AND
I. V. THE 'C'oIvIIIIISSI0N1éR/DIRECTOR
.. FOR FOOD. 5: CIVIL SUPPLIES
" c.:UNNINGHAM"RoAD
'A r BANGALORE -- 560 052.
IIA*I*IIi:,;v..DIa§_'PIjIY COMMISSIONER {FOOD}
TUMKIJR DISTRICT
TUMKUR.
THASELDAR
_ MADHUGIRI TALUK
' TUMKUR DISTRECT
TUMKUR.
RESPONDENTS
{BY SR1. NARENDRA PRASAD, I-ICGP]
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION Is FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
or THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOj_ QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2003 PASSED BY THE”:F<2,""IN'v,1-IIS
ORDER NO.FSD/FPD/CR/42/01-02 AT ANNEX'UR13–=G;'. _
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON I?OR'.fPR£*:'I.II»IIN.:§R*r,
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURfi"iviAI)E 'THE FOLLOWING: "
The petitioner granted: authoriaation
sometime in the year. 2000;""'
2. Suffice it notice was
issued by The show
the petitioner had not
lifted–,_the of four months. Second
show issued on 11.10.2001. The
aL1t§horization”infavour of the petitioner was suspended
I and a finai order was passed on
0. canceling the authorization.
0. 3–.«:’The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner
suffering from sciatica, a medical certificate of
0 ‘I -Iivhich is made availabie at A_nnexure-E. Apparently, the
authorization of the petitioner was suspended on
22.11.2001, which is almost close to nine years do
_ 3 _
the line. I am of the View that re-opening the matter,
which is almost concluded does not arise.
4. Mr. I-I.C.Shivaramu, learned eounsel..a»ppe’ari’i1g
for the petitioner submits that the peti_tionet
faulted for the delay in disposalof :t:hej;n1atit.e’r–.h: ° ‘ V
5. I am of the view the’ L’
be accepted inasmiich ‘iordehf ” by the
Appellate Authoritj afld the P1″3Se1’1t
petition is later.
-‘alternate arrangement has
alreadglr-i4_l0eenl” the suspension of the
a15..§th0I*ization final order dated: 29.03.2003, it is
» Vidtoo day for the petitioner to re–open the entire
ll * ‘When the matter is concluded. I am of the
View that this is a stale claim which cannot be
‘V en-tertlained.
No merit. Petition stands rejected.
fie
-4-
Mr. Narendra Pxaad, learned High C0u_r_t_
Government Pleader appearing for respondents
permitted to file memo of appearance with
within four weeks. ‘
SS*