Namdev Kamath vs The Commissioner on 28 May, 2008

' cp 

.1.

in mm mm: COURT or    
DATED THIS THE 23mT%nAY%0FMAY,  = "   

BEFORE:   
THE HON'BLE  u1V\i().}IA'1'\I'V RE§DY
WRIT PEITTFION 
BETWEEN        AA  FA

1 mwmwv    %
AGE?) A;3owf,_62 'ms  ..  
S] G"JA!§Af§DHé;¥%A 'i:5r.aA*2*H' '   

2 sHAN'rz-;AvN_ " ' 
AGE1}VVABOU'F._5€yYRS«~._> * '

BOTH 'ARER/A1' mama 1-3-1030.
smaxaswukwaan BANNANJE umzpr :01
..-mop: TQ AND, ms?

i * %WiD1*1AVA' 'BHAT
 " A TAG~F,n_Aa(;uT 62 ms
. '%s;o 'SfiRIHIVASA BI-JAR
' m.A1f«_t .903? MUDARAN em:
vane: TQ AND ms?

 V. m NO"!-{AR RAG

 _ AGED ABOUT 52 YRS
 sic ANANTHAKRISHNA mo

E R/AT N0.11~3--108F

r SHIRIBEEDU WARD
BANNANJE UB1}?! :01
UDUPI TO AND DIST
REP BY' GPAH GURURAJA BHAT
s/0 GOVINDA BI-IAT
n.1m.1 1»3--1o3p*, BOMMANJE, unu:->1.

 PETITIONER8
(BySr.i : s KAC}-IARYA& K CACHAR ) E



ct':

bcfcrxe the Deputy  ,  Ex;   "' 'V
be txanamittcd to the seandigg  '1"s.:;: 

respondent---Municipality    the  

mama mam. Municipality «Jag:-yéguée age order.
In that view’ of the sVu@ ‘ for

This of directing
the ~ V the anaemmzive the
to dispose of the appeal
filed by within 15 days from the data:
of pi’ of this order.

Sd/zé
Iudafé