High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Sri Maharudragouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Sri Maharudragouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COU§?'I' OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 213: DAY or APRIL 2'€§§9 .  "' ' 

BEFORE:-'  ~

THE HOBPBLE MR.Jus'r1c1é=AJ:?i'J';'G13mA:§'_   

Wm' PETITEON No.62:'%$$8;525§4/éo09(;~;::5§$;§:;«»  

BETWEEN:

1. M/S SR1 B. MAHARUI5«R£;GO'1JD.{;= 
BY ITS PARTNER  '   .  
SHRI B.MAHARUDRAGQ.UDA, AGEDV49 Ymres,
3/0 E. DODQANAGOUDA.' - L -  '

2. 3121, GURUL:;*x'GANAGQU~DA TRAIDNG co.
B? ITS PROPRIETOR,   ' -
SR1 Gr3RUL1Nr~3A*Nj_A<3o:;DA4,
AGE 49=YEARS;--  . 
S/O SR1 i\1ARP.YA'IS¥A7RAi'3'SI.

  3. ,_Ai»'.*sDfLiL MAZEUEDVSAB AND sons

« BY  PARTNER,
V' 'SRE NG.O'R AHAMAD, AGE 45 YEARS,

  S}_A i_£AMED.

4} ,s"1i21vAs}9gi¢f:AT§e.<3ENc1Es,
BY rats P?0PRIE'I'OR,
sm.B;;<.c;op1NA'rH,AeE 44 YEARS,

 AA Ts/0-mars SR: B.K.KRISHNA MURTHI

 .,'1:iI:v.MADHAvAYYA AND COMPANY

--' BY ITS PARTNER,
E am D. KRISHNAYYA, AGE 55 yams,
s/0 Sm D.V.MADHAVAYYA.

6. MANJUNATH AND COWANY,
BY ITS PARTNER,
sm AKALYANAGOUDA, AGE 49 YEARS,



: 2 :
S/O SR1 A. BASANAGOUDA.

7. VISHWA TRADING COMPANY
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SR1 M13'. SHANTH MANJUNATI-§
AGE 38 YEARS,
W/0 M.P.MANJUAN'I'H.

ALL ARE GENERAL MERCHANTS AND' 
COMMISSION AGENTS Y
APMC YARD, BELLARY.

{BY SR1. CHANDRASHEKAR PA'!%IE;.{&DV;}'v- V

AND:

1. THE STATE 09' KARNATIEKA 
BY rrs SECRETARY S

Dspsgfiwmfimfr 512:, SO#€§PERAT'E'0?I 
M.SVIBUILDIHQ,_BANC.*A1;QRE_. _-

2. T1-IE"D1REc?ro:3;'é;§31éic:i'L*I'URAL
MARKETINGVIQAJBHAVAN. ROAD,
BA_N_GALClRE'56Q';001_. 

 »  . 3. ._'r'§'zE:$EC,RETAi2Yv.. ..... .. ~

*  'COMMYFFEE, BELARY 9131'. BELLARY

 (B?-s:RiL' ié"!';:._H;§*i*f1, HCGP FOR R-1 ANB R2.

PiC3RIC'iJL'P{}RAL PRODUCE MARKETING
...RESPONDEN'I'S

SRI.__Ia€ALLEKF&If£5UN BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R3.)
I  FETITIOND ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

'  "AND 22%')? THE CONS'i'I'1'U'E'ION OF' mam PRAYING TO QUASH
.ROi)ERS DATED 6.9.08 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE F} To 7
* mssgzs BY RESPONDENT 3 arm ETC.

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

-HEARING, THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

,..1=>E?1f1*ri0N’s:1a>:s”‘* I

Mr. R. K, Hatti, 1ea1’:1edj.Gove1;nnfi}t P1ea.£:1t;r:is
to take notice for respondent N6s..:iand.2;*~ «V

2. Mr. E;asaereddy’,vve ‘Adivocate is directed
to take notice forAzespo13de1:it’–No.v–3.:.,L V V.

3. for 1j:fiee”_-g:-<f:i:i'i:i'<:a11VerV"is directed to serve the

copy of _c-:3-I.V1VV:eI,s.eI for respondents.

E*Jc;:f 3f1e ..t"hdi1gii"'.. these matters are listed for

* consent they are taken up for finai

All the three counsel submit that the subject

V' of these writ wtitiona is covered by ruling of this

' in Writ Petition No.31098 of 2008 disposeci of on

" 13.2.2009. Fenowieg the Ieaaoning stated therein, these

writ petitiona stand disposed of permitting the

I
/
A

:4:

petitioners to: put up the construction Within a

months fmm the date of communication of H

plan. If the said exercise is not oergzpieted of V’

nine months the order/notictt this ._

relating to forfeiture shall “and ” L’

the site would be forfeited by th¢%ApMe%._V}
Petitions stand. dis’pVo$§d’

Mr. R Basaxeddy are
pcxmitied filéifisjgmt; four weeks.

sal-

juflge