High Court Karnataka High Court

Neelappa S/O Yallappa Jantali vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Neelappa S/O Yallappa Jantali vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
WP N0. 62648/2009(S-RES)

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 201:4!

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE    

w.1=. No.62643/zoogqisgkssy     

Between:

Sri. Neelappa S /0 YaI1appa.Jat_1ta1iw*i""' _ 
Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired S'ec'reta_ry%.j_»' ;  
R/0 Beiavanaki  V   - V '
Ron Taluk, Gadag District     . a
Senior citizenshi be:1e1"'i.tji10t*c1aim~ed'=.   .. 
--~   ~ ~ ~  « " A  PETITIONER

(By Sri.S.S.I5ati1; Advacfafiéy   t
And: it  i it
* V. '_ The State  
 By its S"e.cre"ta1y, Panchayat Raj Department

 M.s..3(uit1dmg,m. Ambedkar Veedhi
'Ban_gaio.1ie  5550 00 1

 2.' _ The"'~Dep_i.1'ty«Commissioner

V . _'Be1gau:m District

it it "   ' ---  Beigaum

  i The Chief Executive Officer
A Ziélia Panchayat

T  "Belgaum District, Beigaum



WP No. 62648!2009{S--RES)

4. The Secretary
Village Panchayat, Hebbal
Hukkeri Taluk
Belgaurn District -- 591 129

(By Smt. K.VidyaVathi, AGA for R-1 8:. 2
Sri. Huiyal, Adv for R-3 85 4)   

  ~

This writ petition is filed under   

the Constitution of India, praying' to quash-- the..o'rder'da";te"d

29.12.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent produced:a1on'gV~With " 0'

writ petition as Annexure–i-1.

This writ petition comiingon -‘for: pre.1i1n.inary hearing this

day, the Court made the fo11oWin’g:’s..V.I’» p

Learned”pcounseiifpfori submitted that the
writ petitionivmay directing respondent No.3
_ the Chief Zilia Panchayat, Belgaum to
ciorigjderV_»1:i’etit_ionver’srepre_sentation dated 13.10.2008, a copy

of “is at Annexure–G.

itiiffi stated that the aforesaid representation was

ptirsuant to the order dated 16.04.2008 passed by the

H Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in application

N.o:.”2653/2000, a copy of which is produced as Annexure–E.

WP No. 62648/2009(S–RES)

i

3. It is stated that the earlier representation:

23.07.2008 was not considered on the ground thatit ‘

given by the petitioner but by his coi1n’se–1.

representation at Annexure–G was not considered.yo.n”

ground that it was not given tirrie ‘byiithe
K.A.T. However, in the iiiterestiiii ‘deem it
appropriate to direct respondent iiit;oi””‘_i_consider the
aforesaid representatgifié in
accordance of two months from
today. The a copy of this order

to respondent ‘No.’3,

iiiii it it /a