High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivaji Rao S/O K Somaji Rao vs The Returning Officer / Range … on 19 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shivaji Rao S/O K Somaji Rao vs The Returning Officer / Range … on 19 June, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


-1-

IN THE maxi SOUR? OF KARHATAKA,

DATED THIS THE 191*! my 01? JUNE, 7}’ » x

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR,JL¥S’I’ICE E;Aiv1 MQHAN i§EQ:)Y?

WRET PEPYFION No. 15129] (LB:-i?31}E}” %

BETWEEN

SHIVAJI RM?)

310 K, SQMLAJI RAD

AGEE ABOUT 52 YEARS V V
Rm BASAVANIXH-ALLI, .
PG: RAN(}ENM-EALLI

TQ:’F£:xf$Il{E’I°1’i.;., . , %
DIS’PRivCT’-CI-£lCi{‘§J§a5}G~AIL;Uf€—- ‘ ‘
= = 3 PEFFFIONER

_ 1, (BY vaavfixfima s PATIL ASSOCIATES)

V’ ., A. H ….. -A N

1 T T.'”rH_E g1i”x3’&I’I§.RNING OFFICER /

* ._ , &;w4:3B.:e*:3REs’r OFFICER
‘ M_UfiU_GODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
mrmieonu, TQ: TAR}!-(ERR.
~~ms’r: CHICKMAGALUR.

A 5]” THE Munuzmmg GRAMA RANCEHAYAT

MUBUGOBU,
TQ: TARWERE,
mgr; cmcxmacmwn
BY ITS sscamanv

AMENDED AS PER CQLIRT ORDER
DATED 456.2008
. :J\;\

.2.

SR! DHANFAL:

S] 0 SR! THEFPANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R] O BASAVANAI”IALI,;I
LAKKAVALLI HGBLI
RANGENAHALLI POST
TARIKERE TALHK

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT ‘

SM1’. SARQJAMMA
W’/C} ADITHYAN

AGED ABOUT 45 Ymés

R ,1 O GANDHINAGAR ‘ ‘
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI

RAN(3ENAHALLi.__POS{I’ ” ‘

TARIKERE ?fAi.1II{

CI~!IKMA§§rAEL_Ili?._3)§S’F§§!§?P.._

sR1iEI.N, :1-J§;;:sm;;nAzA*r1e§V””‘-V__ .

3/0’32: 4NANq;agé9A’T» 4

AGED ABOUT 42 ~Y£’.AR$” ”

R10 RAN-CQENAHALLI’
mxmvmnz AHGBLI’
TARIKERE TAB-‘.J.I§____« .

” « C-HIKMAQALLIR DISFRIC!’

% _SRi gA?A!2£aM

– Asm SRIKARIYAPPA
50335330? 43 YEARS

RIO GANDHINAGAR
RAP€{}F;NAHALLi ms’?

AA TARIKERE TALUK
. _c:371KMAc;ALUR DISTRICT

SMT. saamsmzmssa
‘– W’/O MR, YOUSUF

FAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R] O RANGEi’iAIr-IALL1
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI

W

10

-3-

TARIKERE ‘I”ALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT

SR} RAJU
3.0 SRI PONNUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
mo VADDARADIBBA
RANGENAHALLI P031′
LAKKAVALLI 11031.1
TARIKERE TALUK

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT %

SMT. PARVATHAMMA. _
W/0 SR1′ MANJUNA’1’HP ,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEAR3,V V
R70 RANGE_’.NA_HALLI ” ‘ »
mKKAvALL:i;§§3B£1 . *
TARIKE-R133 f_1’i7’gI_.J.§K” _;

c:i::{isn2ac?;;«%1,I}£r;: ”

SMT, V;ASANTH:_?xKU!VI;&R§*
M0 331- RAMESH .– V .
AGED A300?’ ’40 ‘2?EE{RS
41:2 }’o.RAnG22rmHAL.Lx

.. nAz»;KAvALL1″Ha-sh:

“;’AS'<s1~:ERE TALUK

' f "Ci-H.K§w§}i€}'A1{UR nrsrzzrcrr

11".

“‘3R1V?2′”§Aj_§{§§§§H HAIKA
*~.s;<}' SR;I'I{RISHNA zwxa

Afififi ABOUT 40 YEARS
R10 BASAVANAHALLI

V. A' ' LAKKAVALLI HOBLI
* TFARHQERE TALUK

CEHIKMAGALUR DISTRIC-'f'

SR1B.V, MANJUNATH
s/:3 SR1 BEETAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R10 VADDARADHIBBA .

W

-4-

LAKKAVALLI HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT

13 SMT, MEENAKSHAMMA
W10 SR! DQRESWAMY ; _

AGEI) mod? 49 YEARS

R! O INDIRANAGAR
RANGENAHALLI POST

LAKKAVALLJ H0512!
TARIKERE TALUK-..

CHIKMAGALIJR nlérizicr. .5

14 SIXATE 3:1,:-f;’c:’r:o1~:’ ‘{iéna{M’1.$sQ:’er«§ V’ ”
MARKE2M*1uc;-FEpERAT:oN B.13m_3;;s:G

CUN1§.}’Nf3-HAM:’–_R()AE)’ A ~ L
BANGALQR3. * p

,’ 1111 ~ 2 % RESPONDEINFFS
% ‘– (BYjs:§;R m£:%z§£QA$, AGA FOR R3,,
391 H. KANTHARIM, ‘ADVOCATE FOR 223-13,

SR1 “1=!:2A1;As;1 FI_EG..lZ§E K, ADVOCATE: FOR R2,
A. — SR1 K§N, “PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R14)

‘ C”‘i’H::s W325? Pfiffirimn IS FILED UNDER AR’I’I(3.LES 226

1§N’BV22t?'{}f?_’I’§{E c:9Ns*rmm0N 01:’ 12mm manna m
QUASH _ =,MEETIN.G NOTICE ANNEXURE :2 QT,

3..1G..:;oo*r« ISSUED BY THE R1.

“‘~’rH-is Pfirrrrlgw GQMING on FGR HEARING THIS

V pay, THE CQI..IR’!’ MADE ‘THE FOLLOWING:

Q__I.l_.9.§B

Izeamed Govt. Advocatt: submits that the relief

ufsough for in the writ pctifion is mndeztd infructuous by

passage of tixne. :_d§\

~-s./’

.5-

Recording the submission, the writ

azrcordirlgly rejtiactedk

111.