M Nanjunappa vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 14 March, 2008

Tufi Hfifiqfihfi HR. JUSTICE K.h."'""UNfl u
w.P.Nc.19u6s or $00§£GH§TEfiif, 
BETHEEH I A'   " '  

345 HM-IJUNBRPPFL
«LE ':'E_-HRS
FROFFJ ETCIR

HJS saxvxmavaua Eugcfkzcaus
MnnnUR.MANDYA HIST '
'z. - .num1mtnnnn
w * can »».|:f.l:Il.J..i.L\.a|lIlZ|I\

If:

qfiy ~ri fififififi E fiEn§iHfifi:;_" fa "ii:

AND:

~"EY-1T5 SEERETARY
1 DEPT;,gQF<PUfiL1q WORKS
'dH;5,EU1;filflE_EANGALQRE L

1 rras. 3&1:-'.:*':.*.E 03:'  A

33*  -mt rzehv.-1m'$'.1r'1'31 , fig;

, Pwn'aH:MwGAVnIv1sIoH
.+_ '§H1wnsA,__M_ _____
3_ THE $UFEfiifiTEfifiEfiT En*IHEER
ON

V".V=§wn"g:t151

'""3H1"QG"
'A.- ... RESPONDENTS

:§g $ri. B.VEERAPPA, BEA;

_H’DEEl. ARTIEZLES 22.5. 22′? Q3′

‘LLB _F

I!-I

LE

CIIEINSTITUTIQN CIF INDIE; TC! QUAEIH THE IMPUGNED
F !s1IIJTIF.IC3fi.TIDN UT. 22.12.2006 VIBE ANNEIXUREI C

Pf…1EL1′.E~’E-IE1} II-1 VIIJAYT. I’mR!’1i°.TPJ’CF. NEWS PAPER
{WC}: T’ N’? 71- fi-TE FER Sfififiififilfifi 5F

2: E

” V’ . rézéiu ..

‘1″El5II1EF:. ALPPLCIJATIUN ‘.I”|3 22.12.2005 IS RESPECT OF
TE|?’lDEFi I-JDTIFICRTIQIQ Psi-LID ETICLJ

“Tb. s I u H 7|.’ 7.

.u1$ petltimn ccmlng an far 9£$L;minary

hearing this day, the Eourt made the f§il¢w1n7;§»

Having heard the 1eé;naaJjc¢ufia91 f¢g athe

partias, this caurt is gt th§’apinian fih§: tfié;

purpwaa far which the §£$f patiti§n ii filed is

mat flarvad.

.n. 74_ . L,~._ -Z… ~. .

In iihia cjircugm

15 di$mis&adfé$ having banana ififructuaus.

% Sd/3
%%%%% J-udge’