IN THE H1GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 261'" DAY OF AUGU'S'l' 2008 PRESENT . THE I-l()N~3LI§3 MR. JUSTICE nsnmx vnmaié. "
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUS’FICE; 3.S.’1*e:Q}msNA ‘: ”
WRIT APPEAL No.63}1512c#:2o;(‘GM ~ * VA ‘
BETWEEN : V. ‘ ”
MR PARAMJIT smea _ _
MAJOR. No.35, rm ROAD-.__ % _
BANGALORE 560027 = …g:%mLLAm
mmmm wnwn X
A . ‘A 1’ ” «’U£§1’oN’oF :Nni}i’éEcRETARY
‘ ~ _ % f?’i’)OD’AN”:Z>__ czrvn. suppuss
i?5’RI,iMENT’ARY FOOD BHAVAN
‘ 1..V%«NEw_~;*3E’;;4_~11
2 z):%:=;~*;’m:§:’r FORUM
33? SECRETARY
_ camooa
L j 3THE REAL ESTATE coummms.
cm-pxu MADAMAPALLJ
BY rrs PRESIDENT
SR1 P mwooo KHAN
MADANAPALLJ
4 GGOVINDASWAMY MAJOR 1 = ._
(RETIRED AIR FORCE OFFICER; T .
mm 19/59,
CAVAMMA TEMPLE S’I’REE’.’J_ _ _
N D PET CHADRAGIRI Pom “_ V ”
cnrrrooa DISTRICT * RESPONDENFS
(By Sri ARAVINDA mam. Asa:’*;,”szeIi_-séiz’vAPRAB’Hu”& sm
c. HEREMATH, case F’.0R;_R;1 as Ax);-rwr.-=.*::>
sm M SUDHAKARP131, fapvgpoze R4)
was WRIT A’E>PEALAiS’F*1:§.}E£i Liwajx SECTION 4 0;: THE
KARNATAKA HIf3’Hg.C OURT ACT PRAYE-NQ….’.{‘O 51:1′ ASIDE THE
0129312 Passfaimu MQ;32a;36,t,z995 DATED 9.6.2000.
Tins’ Appc.. _ fg ‘¢n– :§ ‘ ‘ heath g t!1’m
day, nmmx me following .=
‘1br the appellant, Sn’ Aravind Kumar,
seam’ ‘mr General for Union of India and
% ts:-5 M.uSz1(tii§alvcar Pad for nespcmdcnt No.4.
x Arguments beam and mcoztis perused.
M
3. This writ appeal filed under aacfiocn
Act has been filed by the K V’
W.P.N<:x.32036/1995 decided on
Single Judge. The ivxit
Pbtitioa under section 226 9;' the of
{India with a prayer for to quash
the pmviao contained Consumer
Protection % uncxxnafitutional
came to 001161' V is no merit or aubatmoc in
the Wxfit Adiainiissed the smac. The impugned
but since no such scéttlcmvmt could be
was argued and the sum: trim' tely
% i.ii d'mmissal of the appellant's was Petition. The
" order further shows that at on: point of tune" , the
opinion that a Writ Petition of such a "
permjtm In he withdxaxvn and pmoeed__ w.e%'A¢V% &;m.e 4.'na.'
same after imposing mats of Re.20;'{)00j'– ii'
wrritappealisbefoxe us. Dun-mg' 1%,
wide Commune: Protection " t gfvtct,' came
into eflbct from £5 Section
27 cf the Act has been so, the
constitutional to he
considered fie. does not continue
he V
34. counsel snbmimd that vide the
by the Ieamed single Judge, the
appeflanl; Kwho is now aged about 64 yw, has been
tbromanccm under Section 193 of
attention has been drawn to para 30 91′ the
V order which deals with this aspect of the mucr.
V[ learned senior counsel apfiing for the appeilmt
.\®
submitted that apart fimn the advanced age of V”
all the disputes between the appcilgnt,
have now been settled and whatcfcr
and ontsmdzizng has since * %’
as of now. The learned cxmnsfil does
not dispute this as on date,
nothlh g is due and mmmmn’ the ‘ _~1’EVm1t. it has
Iefund thcmof is being
5, 111 of subsequent development
‘~ we 31:: of the opinian that no
going to be served, if the older as
20 and 22 is dimcmd to be implemented.
V V . years have already elapsed, cvcmmoc’ the
an-rxxnc 120 be passed at the time the appeal came
T._’i.11)_ fc:-* The intexim stay was passed in favour of
rim? appellant which is continuing even an data.
“M
On account of the that that the matter has V’
sctfled between the parties (I-l’l.it.lH6f: ‘
are of the conaidcmd opinion that fine
“m para 29 of the smpumza me: M
a implemented. Themfizm: to the Ofdciflial para
20 and direction in pa1’a’::’.23_ of by
the learned Single Judge %5s:g~c:%hé:Vc§3;¥ Nothing more
is required to ofthe mm is
Sd/-.
Judge
Sd/-
Judge