High Court Karnataka High Court

S M Raju vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 17 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S M Raju vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 17 March, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil


2*-E TIE”; £5611 CQLYRT OF K?-.RNAT.?J€A AR’ BA§K1AL£}§l’£, \3«”Pl’¥0a 469? & 4’§’?1~?3 of
2!}€)£i

P’-

“Ia

5 THE COM!’¢1%.’3S%{}NER
QANGALORE MAHANAG ARA PALIKE
JTCTRQAD
BANGALORE

T.

{S¥\¢’€”é” AR. SHARADAMBA AGA FGR R13, 2 AN?) 4
$93. SAAVARAJ V. SABARAD AEEV. 550%? R-3 .
SR3. §<..N.PU'§'TEGOWOA ADV. FOR R5) 1

THESE wps. ARE FKED UNDER Amirzgés. A543 22:7 9:5 'THE' "
CGNSTéTUTi€}¥*~§ or: £N{}tA, PRAWNG TC}-f.3§RECTA.'F§-3E RE$PCri3€DENTS§TO

PRQHEBWRESTRAEN mom guraaczma 'me £}E£sL%{3':'§{}r~3:3_Gi§RG*{AU'{
mom THE B£LLS RNSEE) av THE"*._P'T':ZTiT§0N£R$ * as PER THE
NQT£F3CA'{iON AT ANX~A mi 243 JUNE 5:45 THE QRCHLAR? AT ANX-
s QT, 2a,a7.2m. ETTTTECT THE..REs9~3NoE_:~T:"s "NOT TO CGLLECT ANY
ROYALT'! FRQM THE ans r:a::_T;~-TE sissrergorsaeszza 'AME: To Rarumz THE
RQ'{Ai.TYOFTHEPE1'§T%0NER8; ' — .

THESE was cemws QT – v:v'<.::§:: F?R£taMi'é§A;Rf€"'é;EARerTG THIS asset.
THE CQURT MADE_?HE«_FQLLGWl!'{G:_ s V'
: 'V 1'

Th§__pé%§§§}.Tfi'£gjf_ has sought far 3
éire<:tEr3é':.._§u._ ':%":AV:a-5L"i*ea::::**e:Tt§:T3:';§i:iTé§:*:s'tT.. 'pfohibiting [restraining {ham

"§¥'G¥Tl enfofé.-Egg sf myaity from the biiis

Tfaissfi, jthen' 'petificmer as per The nafrfication at

kLTTTTmTaexuregATa§Ted 2nd June 2903 and the Circuiar at

A:§'r'T,-%:"$. $69? $2. 4?’$’E–33’3 Gf
2999

EN Tifi E35311 CQEERT Q’? KARNATAKA .;E’QE$}€QALQRE. ‘%’ZP.N0& 45:5′? 3: 4′?’.?1–‘?3 sf

-3«

2. Pefitiener is 3 registered Civii contracrtor carrying

an civii works, such as, canstruciiens and repair of canal,

buiidings, read, drains etc. in hha Gavernmgfii-..:and.'<§£i§e: 'V

iczcai bodies arid for the

warks, flue required materéai-,=:* such :arr_§'stane=.:'5;- and limé

etc., have been purchased a Ecensed
quarry €)Wfi&i'S. it is the 1peti&:VzAne=:r that,
the authorifies royafly
fmm the rur}:*2'§?;g_ arid they saw
rant entifiefi View of the orders
i'3assad 'r ti*'av§*.jé:'#V' " §':»is;*:1iiar matters. Therefcre.

petitioner ca:'§s'.§:réi.riéc§:to praent thwe vvrit petifions

V' :,appfQpr%$te"'r*e¥ief, as smted supra.

V 'VS. heard teamed commie? appearing for

pefiminajg Riésarned Additienai Gmzerrxment Advocate

""'-Eépgaaringt for f&$pt3fidef':'tS~1, 2 and 4, and iearned

_ . ¢oi:'2"':®i appearing for ndenw3 and 5.

-.———‘—=*-‘-”””‘–””””””””'””””’

/

I?-3 H33 Iflflfi COURT (3? KARNATAXA AT 1};%§’€GAL{}RE ‘3Z’P:}~?€’.)§;. 469? 5′}: 4′?’.E’E–?:- if
253}?

3% TREE EBCEI C’£C3§§I{‘E’ O? KEKRE’-¥AT.ésKA AT 1},%.%°~IG ;’~%I.€}R}3 ‘a?u’.P?;’%()a. -469′? 8: 4′..é”&’1«’?3 itxf

Jim

4. After carefm fiarusai of the grounds urged by

fietiiinner, ém3udiz’1g the prayer smught for by hi:if§;*.T.§t

emerges that, petitioner without redressing hés__;:;r’§–e’3g;2}_§f§{§’aa.§::”

befcre thé campetent autharities picjnting (mt _’a~:§ ” w.

net iiabie tax pay royalty in respectiiyf

him, has straightaway ap3§i<a;.a;chVé¥:ci t31'fs' '

presenting {hm writ, .. petitMia5$_;«. Wthcavut
expressing any epirsion of this
case, the writ ;;~,ei*§§§c§s1s disposed of,
permitting ~ "ta ggfbrséit his dataiied
eonsazscsated Eéftgre the jurisdectzonas
campetévfia respondants, along with

macresgsary four weeks frcam the date csf

of' order.

X jurisdicticnaé Cumpeterfl: Autmrity en’ the

V .;asp d’n:déij.ts’ are ciiracteti to receive the same and pass

« ja;:épr:::pri§te ordys in mt: fiance wéth iaw and in the fight

‘V ‘LN TEE EIEQEI {I =3U¥?.’1′ OI?’ KAR’;*é”AT:kKA 51′ 13t§3.’%é.’}ésL{)iZE \5~’.P.Nf}s. 469′? & 4’31-73: Gf

..’!&’.3£*