IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER ':2D'oi9.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICERAMI RDDDY
WRIT PETI_'[ION N0.28V757~ 58 2oo9Is"png;I *
BETWEEN
1 SI-IANKARAPPA BASAPPA' GUDDAD
_ AGE 61 YEARS,' RI"£T1RED;--C,HIEE OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL 'COUNCIL _' ._ " .
LAKSHMESHWAR, ,_1jIs'IRIC;fr c}AIjA<;--.
2 MALLAPPA'I;v,ViR.UPAKSHAPPA"HOOLI
AGE_.@5'»YEAR;S,"QC_C' --:.._CI-vIIEF OFFICER
TOWN M'U'NICIPAL"COUNCILg '
NARG'U.ND','1«:D_I_SCF. GADAG.._.._ PETITIONERS
[BY S_{----'i-'§'VfVA'1'§"V!'fL-',:$.:|.,wfi:'BA,V'.'I)',:::S.V;" ADV)
AND:'_'V
1 _; "IKE STATIDCF KARNATAKA
J RELPTD. BY ITSIISECRETARY
« DEPT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
' _V'II§ASA_SQUDHA, BANGALORE -- 1.
2' . "D'I'DIRIǤ:':TbR OF MUNICIPAL
A}:JI$rII.1\?IS'I'RA'}'ION, GOVERNMENT OF
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(LQCAL BOIJIES AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
r. " «.._[AUTH'ORITIES), M s BUILDINGS.
JBANGALORE. RESPONDENTS
SR1. SHASHIDHAR S I, HCGP }
£s”i
THESE PETITiONS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYINC: TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDE.R’V.._’TH=E_2IR
REPRESENTATIONS DATED 19.9.09 AS PER AN«N.–4L’V .51′ EBY
ISSUE OF WRIT or MANDAMUS; OR ANY _OTHERCfVJIf{E—-‘{‘;
AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS. CCV3MI].’5IG~:V out
HEARING, THIS DAY THE ‘co1:;RT t.v-MADE
FOLLOWING I
\’ o
The seniority the other
empioyees matter of
proceedin;«.gS 2000 disposed of on
10-O Appiication Nos.6843 8:
6844/R2oo’1 9-6-2008 Annexure-“B” of
the Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.
A that View of the matter, the Very Same
been brought by this Court over the very
Sarzriegrehef, it IS neediess to state that the petitioners
“:C.T_hai}eA_A_an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an
Eippsai
.~»»'” M.
[before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
54’/’
under the Administrative Tribunals Act and in that View
of the matter, I decline to interfere.
accordingly, rejected.
KS