Munithayamma W/O Lt Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2009

I my ;  I

 .1  1'I5§'I=3.,'s"Ii}§xii"£: 0:9' KARNATAKA

A 5]"  'T  'I"I~II4: 'I'AI«~IsII,I3AR

i
IN mg HIGH comm' OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORIEE
DATED THIS THE 20*?" DAY 0;' NOVEMBER 2009
BEFORE N
"THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A s BOP_f§N"PI§>Av:.'._::  

WRIT PETITION NO. 28660/H2009 {I§i;;¥?;{E%E$) _ ‘
BETWEEN: V « 1’ 4 H
I SM’1’MUNIT}-IAYAMMAIV
AGED ABOUT 57 YE:.A.RS».,_
V\/’H73 OF LATE RAWIAIAH 1 »
R/AT HOSABEEDI

NARYAANAPPA B..U”I}.D .A ~ .__ V. ‘ ‘- _
YEZLAHANKA. BAN’GAl’.ORF2g£S4

REPT. .

oz? HIOLIER *

SR1. “I-2. R_z’XMAC’}’lANI)3RA’*SI/ O}RVAMAIA}~I
I§Ir:II::I)”‘I<sII33. ..CHI£N§\IARAYA REDDY, ADV.)

RI§5:}g>’.~E-N” ITS CHIEF SECRI£’1’ARY
. Ni .8; . BU1L.I)lNG, AMBEDKAR V}E1I£If)}-H
~~BA;NGALORP3 M 01

II)Is:vAI\IAI~IAI.LI TALUK

I

*9

5

bearing WIR No.79/80-81. in fact. the pet’it:i(.)11e1′ wouid
have to refer to the said order, s_’:eee1,1re details from the

same zmd t.1’1ereaft,er ma}n

before the authorities so that the details of ;(_3t’]~.

which the said IHR No.79/804%} vvae—-»hi:;1dem:\vt)L11a

ind’1ee1t.e the reference to the ee1r1§ier’ en-at.:iv11’e (§t’.g1*et1”;tr”;-e___ , .A

5. ‘1″he1’ef0re, sat rrtémdan111s
sought: for by the tssued. Ielowever
Eibertiy is reservexd t.(;””11h-e:”: fsecrtne further
details i11_ to the mut,at.ior1
01’der._tiaetfhézattettt detaiis with .1’eg_-gard to

the 1’ig.11t’-Cimtfieéi-,git:ed”m’é1ke: ‘a detailed represe1’1t.atei0n to

the ‘i”ah5s_4i}Cl;1rV,V’_4Vt:he2.:f;2″<i responcierat. If Such

re2p35'._esveti';t.ation' by the petitiorxer. the 'l"ahs'1Edar

' \?\f<}:.1:1ci–v,_vn5:3iEirF:1’ the same in aeCordar1ee with law and

t.he:’eafife19j*;in.i.irr1atre the pet:.it.i()ne1″. In this-2 reggarci. it. is

rieediesés to mentiicm that. even if any other p21rt:.g’C.u1ars

are”~1’1<)t: memioned in the fresh represeht.atior1 to be

A:

,.-..

‘I