Shri Bhuvaneshwari vs The Superintendent Of Police on 11 March, 2008

IN THE HIGH counr or xnnnamnxh, nnuannonn
nnwnn THIS THE 11TH nnv or nAn¢fi :90a
BEFORE I ' "

was How an HR. ans-1-1 cat _K_-,  _  

s PiflQi'Tge Q! zcaa:sM--pgL;cnr'

I -now - .-

Sfifii ifiuvafissfiififi: 'g =.f; a
svonms AND CULTfiRHb.h33fic1AT10fl tnsena
no 62i1;,sAmzsH--gU:n§iN¢ *~ ~

Hanna? RQfiD,;DQDnRfifiLbABUR Town
BANGALORE nunnL - - ~ =

n3pnssEuw3n.nv_1Ts*sfichz?nnr
¢&'" V% '-1 »p,_ ~,.% ... PETITIONER

g3f*sri g E fiynaamni a ? fiuuxnaau. Anvncarns:

.wAnfiz§" *

'7: III-I-Iuuruuu----' --u---. --:------.. ..- ...._____._,V 4.44 4 , ,

'--3ujsnonnAnALLArun T

IJIJIEI III' I\l'lK|l'l|lHlI\l'| I"lI\Il'l \n'hlU'!'-ifil \i3I' Iililluil-Ilrnlu-I Iuwunu 'anon:-an

1.

1V THEfsu§m§iawmfinnum oy POLICE

— 33W53P5R3°3fi?3L

– a:’aN::m.o3x–

5 «TS: nfifiufv surnnzuwsunnnw or POLICE
m_ EEEQALQRB nunnn
~, nanshgonn

‘=*HI “Inch:

_.I-1-a-M Ir

:9″ ‘ A

%wm””” I.fJ””:-uu-“‘

TT:1’E Plfibifii SUE 1’fiSPi’C’:”-GR.
DDDDRBALLAPUR TOWN POLICE STRTION
IJEIIIJIIAEALLAPUI7′.

EIINGRLDRK

ht

. . . RESPONTJENTS

‘l”‘I-“|’.’I’..’.’> HIP FILED UNDER JXRTICLES 226 AND 22′? 0

THE CONS’?! ‘T’lJT”I ‘ii if)? i fifiifi “F6 .T Sfiiii 3’\FFRfiF}”sI.?s-‘i’E
‘-‘-‘RI T;1″fl.£ER 9% D1 “..L-TIQ!’! ; HQLD1 M3 TEIAT

PETITIUNEF. IS NOT INTITLIII ‘TO OBTAIN LICENCE

UNDER THE LICENSING ORBIR ISSUED Uflfilk TH!
PRUVIEIONB OF KBRHHTHKR POLICE fiCT AND ETC.

This petitian coming on £¢@ §&§iiminary
hearing this day, the court made fine £611afi1hc;~

petition with 1itfzfi’rff_’– ‘”finar:*. the can: as

and when the ¢hua§.§§fn§tiefi’a:iuos.

.– — -,–. _ -_