High Court Karnataka High Court

M Parashiva Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M Parashiva Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAI40Ij§'E:_'~..  

QATED THIS THE ssh DAY 01:' sEm'EMBERTTi'i5€f3fj     »

BEFORE   

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE    T

WRIT PETITION No.1
BETWEEN:

M.Parashiva Murthy, V ”
S/0. Late Mallaiah,» T
Aged about 32 g ” ” ‘
T.NaI’asipurT£a}u1_£,”‘_,.’ .

Mysore ‘«1.:,__ _ ” …PE’!’I’I’ION’.ER

(By Acfv.)

AND :

, By ita Secretary,
.g)fRllI’al
Dcvelépmcnt
Pamzhayathg Raj,
Vilifisa

001.

TI (mm,

_ ‘Fs§iu.kA”PancI1ayatt1,
Tfiarasipma,

’11:» Mysore mstrict.

3. The Secretary,
Sosale Grama Panchayath,
Tfiamsipura Taluk,

Mysore District. ;1 _

(By Sri.R.Dcvdass, AGA for R1)

This writ petition is filed ‘1″£1erVA}’¥!§el.c5 Vv V’
227 of the Constitution of India’w_it~h a prayez*_tc.,qu_asl1

the order dated 19.07.2008 “by the’

This writ petition up:-e1imm_ ‘ my
hearing, this day,

The 3nd passed a
resolution to mrryhlg said,
under the prcwisi<_ms 6f§hcV: Pmzdmyarh Raj
Act, 1993, a war to the 3:1
Paxxzhayath may mpoee tax
sand within the Panchayath

V. gwarclirg contract to cofiect taxes fim

lm' xts'- . Sxflcc it to say that the pemcmer' 'T

entcz'edintoanagrmentwitl1tIr1c3"*nespondent-%

-3.

Panclmyaxh and the Panchayath issued an Oficial

Memorandum permittirg the pe%na’ to collect
from the sand km: musics, which passes Y

Panchayath limits. Indeed the aucfion a;mn_ K 1 >

Rs.2,50,000/—, which the petitiomx¥ J
deposit. According to. the
was deposited pursuant to a ;Bm

has new directed msmp fmm the
sand laden is at

enwe ammmt. Hence, the
justified in pneverfilg hm from

®!_lecmg’- mg
3;L..1_9&r§R;Devdass, mined Additiona} t

far Evian; No.1 submit: that fl

/’

the mmre amount is not depositw. Hence, he justifiee

the withdrawal ofthe permiaion.

in dispute that pursuant to g

Rs.2,50,000/– was

Rs.1,50,000/- was depositm
balance of the amozmt a was ‘iseued.
The post-dated cheque But
Iwwever, a cleariy

disclose rm been taken
have the petitioner fmm
the terms of the t
is required to deposit a sum of

VRs.2,50;(;§O0_’! ezldor-we-zzt would disclose ttmt he

only Rs.1,50,000/- and me post-dam

V was gven has been taken back. Having

. its this fact, lam ofthe View that the quesfi on of

m’ m’ g this writ pctifimz dew not arise’ .

/’