High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Mahadeshwara Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Mahadeshwara Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH cnum or KARNAmAKA Am HA$GA2Qfifif *_

namn TRIS '}1'HE 1" DA'! O1?fMVAL1GUE::'.§3',:~--:2'Q:(l¥'8:  "

PREsENw3_

THE HoN*BL£ M. Jusiigs k4:.nAufiu§A$a E

THE HON'BLE MRS.JusT;¢3_B,v.nAaARAm&NA

9: . A... rare 'J._6t§_3 sgaé "  
BETWEEN: A*v :rw--f='

1 M./S MAE:-__13Es:--1';wz.rw" _ .f«E1'~:'.'I_'ERE§«'z_ ;:sgsJ'
:eRonm*:»:'as"  5:.' 2 2:, mama
comp}; r¢s;"'2*.;:; I ~,  EXTENSION
2 STAGE' ; ..  'V 'cm': was LAYOIIT
sAn'Jm*s:AVR*maR%,»  94
REP :33: .5121. VoM:)=.>3Arg.=saHV..~

2 M/S JAYACr£ANIl!R3s.-, PRODKCTIOHS
 ms  Kazmzana coLotm
 my 'g..2_su_A, 2"*E:.9oR, MODI aospxwm. ROAD
' u_M2zH¥AE;'§KS§_7'MIF'u'RA, sazaamag as
 REPRE SiI§';fi£TE§D BY sax B R KESHAVA

3 'His  MOVIES
 or-'* MANHIRA MAKKALU
 zmmna coLm3;m,uo.121, CANAIJGHT RQAD
 .. ,QU'EI=.'a}IS ROAD moss, 1==-..z.>.:--:%z.c>'.'.-as 55905
"_ REPRESENTED BY SRI K GANESAR
  . . APP£1.:..A1~I-rs

_  Sri : I-1.1~i.MURIDHAR, 2-'on M/3.5223 RANGA
 ghssocxawzs )



$4

1 STATE or KARNAEAKA
DEEARTMENT 0? xnrcnuamzox _ _
TOURISM AND xouwa $ERVICE${   w_, ;.w  .V,
M 9 BUILDING , DR B R AMBEnKARav32nHi=_,"" 7
aansazoan 1, REPRESENTED BY 123 T * ' '.*\'"'
SECRETARY 'V'y

2 STATE or KARNAEAKA u. ',_AT»
DEPARMTEET OF KARNAmA_aNB_CULTURE,_ V
IRFORMATIN Ann rcunxsa (IEFQRMAIIONAV
BRANCH}, M s BUILDING¢ $3 Bjananznxaa
vzangx, BANGALORE 1' . ., ,_"5¢A(
REP.BI ITS $oHM1s31QEa,f_ '

3 ADVISORY comgITrE5'ccu$Tz¢UTED TO EXAMINE THE
FILMS rogaawgzn Fox was YEAR 2oo6--7,c/o
nzyammaaw cg KAEEAQA AND cunrwaa
INFGRMAEION BfiB ?fiERlSM, FEATURE FILM
DIVISIQN; I F3063; BADAMI wowna
N R caowx; BAflGflLGRE 2,

. Rifikgsznwza BY
==m, its §fihJRMAH}"§fiGhEHiKALLI cxanmaasazxa

. . RESPONDENTS

FILED U/ S 4 OF TIE KARl*’!.3§.’1’AKA EIGH

._H 3,¢éuRr AcT*3nAyxnG TO saw Asxna THE onnan passes IN

_ “$33 wax? ?ETITION uo.13555;2oa7 namnn 29/B/2007.

“I Th:;–.5 appeal coming on for orders this day,
J, delivered the following:

NT

The learned counsel for the agpellazitv’ ”

that when he filed the Writ Pe§:.;i.t:i:;on:

learned Single Judge, that

finalised the award by accepti_:_j;§-..tne at the
Cczmmittee and now Single Judge
dismissed the ;.::et:1t:Lc>n 1.-t3:1.}.:y 7qr:_ ground the

report of the C§zz;u1:L’£_:tt§§”:§j’– accepted

by the Gg¢erfi@§§£”§~an§5t’fifigrafi 15 publishea.
Therefore, Vfinet 1§§§g§¢;_g$§g1é Judge is of the
opinion that Petition has become

-‘3*Jj.nc:y:§”‘ ‘…_.t:3_*;e: petitioner has not

c11ali.ei1g’te”dVt3::?;§é’t«§:rr:§3;er of the Govermtaent.

_2. in at? the same, the learned counsel

“£§£Ttfienappexiant submits that he may be permitted

the Writ Appeal granting liberty for

to challenge the Government order.

dL,/

3. Granting such liberty, the Writ Petitibn i$ ” ”

dismissed as withdrawn. .w-