High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S. Jampana Construction Pvt Ltd vs The Chief Engineer Karnataka … on 3 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S. Jampana Construction Pvt Ltd vs The Chief Engineer Karnataka … on 3 April, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil


I33 THE {§{3{§ C€}L¥R’F £3? $.53?’-§A’?£«’;§{$. AI BA§’;G?3;ORE’ “$’ae’.PJ’%£3., $543 C=f °£{}f}’?

-3. =

225.309 afeng with the communicafian dated 3153 i’s:’§§§¥’r.;h

ZGOQ sent by 37$ Chief Engineer; i-(arariaizakafir%%:$:;$§§*§¥;_;::1

Baard, Bangaiore. in the aaid (‘:(Z’i£’l’Ii’§’A’»§Lii’I§t’}3’1_’§G–¥’:,-A’.:’§§§”}§–.f;}’%E§fu w

V 5

Engineer, Kamataka Housing Bégard’-,A’..B$r1g:23’dré;” j

intimated iha {earned c:0un3ei*é_;’:;”;_eari§1§ ft:-r r£4§;j:;’e1den=ts~

‘é anti 2 that, the tgiédar ‘c2f ‘._t:>r.sfipmed
czanstruction of high r’tsé New fawn,
Eangaicrre, but the
fancier was mzifii ificxziefi code cf candutf
mf stated that 34: the
éiime $3’ §’n3 §iéir°§g: .-fie repraentatiafi sf Mfg

Jampafia ceas::ucé:;¢ni2r§%;”ate i_%m§feé ms: be éeaiceci into

firzri;§i*%§t3é§”~:3é3§%3iefiA%5}%’i§ ‘be taken and were is {’36 cause sf

é€3f§ Gfi_ £5 Further, ‘it is stated that is”: View ef

‘ _genefai e_§fei::t§§§?2 to the Pariéameni rm daisies”: wifi be

H H ” tfié gartmess af eiecfisn is swat’:

3;: The statement made by the Chief Efigifieer,

“««.§?{éf%23?ak3 Hazméng Beard mfiangaiora .~.~–~ in whia

/L

z/-…WWm–~«~—~:»–”

E35 TEE H253 §:’i}€}R’§f {EF Kéfi. ‘§’«.’§2’r’z%ié’x AT B.fu”%G$;L£3’§%E ‘飢’E’.§*§:;:sx 5343 :13? 2€}€”3*

“rim EEESLEEE C032? :3? K?«.R}éA”:’.%KA AT sazscsgeagk w§.zéc_.: 6543 e§ rm;
.41.

ccmmuniaatim éatefi 31.3.20G§ addressed ta ,T~th e

atandifig cwnsei for ragacnéerziss, whinh

predated by {ha iearnea’ count-mi a~§:_v§i’3.f} ‘3″‘*’:

2869, as Stated supra, is g3iace=: ci««x:;:’1 rét.-§.’1f%.*.V * Vv .

4. The writ peti”£§or1_ flied by_L:upié€iiis.:;;1er.’ivs idfépfiésed $1′,
with 3 directim is the Cfikfi.Efi{1_if§é.a%’;’*V§§§fn:=:iaka Hnusing

Soard, Ba21ga§a{sf~3fEu.. _corigS i€3: e:’~.}t§1§§:”:$§z§res€;ré9?:atier1 giver: by

. tha petitianfif’ Qcnstructéan Private

Lim*aied,:’V”b7éf<:a{é%;r, fi29;5.5;i'i:#ii1'§'V"'-the'"_'*i:a:z'i6er process, and to
prmceed firrthef in after affarding remanable

tsgapfirturziiy {ii t§ieV.;:$etA%iéeVfi:é :'" arid Fcurth rafzsanderst, in

ff1e'§ig«§1ti"-"ejf {h.e iavfiéifi dawn by the Apex Court ifi the

Berigai Eiectricity Board Vs. Pam

1 sng;msngca;, aw. refmrted in Am zone SC as: arsé

{;;3u%*E..§n the cxase of W5 Gajanama Engéneers Vs.

firinaipat Secretary is we Gsvsemment Energy

T322 EEEQEE ¥§'€}'i§RT C3? §i.§LE{,3°-§?x'?A§§?1 AT Bfiééfi 56533 s::§ 213339

:2; am 13:32: comm <32? xamwarma AZ? ama A{.{;'rRE_ uzym. 554$ :2? W
-3-

Darzaranant and athers reportefi in iLR 2&0?) Xamataka

39?3, which are :5 be made avaiiabie by the petitiener.
With thae observatians, the instant ‘writ
fiieé by petiiienet’ gtancis dispcsed. L .

tsifi’

. ‘_ ‘ :2»: TEE :§$§E’?;'{*{,:=’RT :31? §»:;a:z2~.ne;:°:1i:2. A’? 3A}~EGAL€3E%}3 2;;..m~:e, $543 as” 2%?