Shri Sannabasappa vs Deputy Commissioner Davangere … on 30 October, 2008

 " 1, V. 'Dé§ijtyV'V'Qommiééioner,
'  E.a;ar;3I1:3g¢i*-ebistrict, Davanagem.

2 . Pissistaigt Commissioner,

V A v~ if "  VT %A,.K.I~Eanumanfl1appa,
 "S;/0 Dodda Durgappa, Major;

   A.K.Ye11appa,

.. 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATABZA AT BANGALORE
DATED '1'I~IIS '1"HE sum DAY OF' OC'I'(i)BER,_.4 
BEFORE % #2;UT':' YADAV,
« ~ ~   AQVQCATES.)

AND; 

"'Har;ipaI»iahafli Sub--Division,
Harapanahaili.

S / 0 Dodda Durgappa, Majm';

5. A.K.Durgappa,
S / 0 Dodda Durgappa, Major; Q6!"

 



Respondents 3, 4 and 5 a1}

Residing at Anabur Viliage,
Allabur Post, Jagalur Taluk,
Davanagere Dismct, Davanagere.

{BY SRI.R.DEVADASS,A{}.1i FOR”-R.1§§t 1

SRLSHANKAR SB}-IAT, ADRIOGATE FORj’R.4.:;-ss..__A

aims

This Writ Petition is f11ed’»vm1<:1er Arti(:1es_5226 and
227 of the ' Constittitien sf' I11{ii.a'4"praying "to quash
AnI1exure~D which is"'–t;he by the R1 in
Case No,PTcL C.R.108i-2G072–f)3 its order dated
24.9.2004 and_'flf1e oifier Vdatesi._29;-1«.1.'2O02 passed by
R23 vide Am1e::;1f'e~C._ ra;s~.ErCL No.145/97-98
and etc. ' 'IT " »

en for prelimmaxy hearm' g in
'B' Group this"day., *Et1_e'Gourt made the fo11cWiI:g:–

4 VA of the counsels, the matter is taken

'2£.,V__A'1-The case of the petitioner is that, this Court by

"«V%4;;;¢%:'jgmer dated 7.11.2000 passed in Writ Pefition

4 _%%1\;?o.21se6/2000, set aside the orders passed by the

4' authorities and directed the Assistant Commissioner to

'V'cb_iectiense w.s11b.mits'tI1£1t substantial reasons have been
given, 'V " the impug1ed order and the
Contfiflfion petitioner being frivolous, the petition

' ' 1 ' * sizould oecfijected.

‘V ‘ A» Vpawril’ ‘es.

decide the application in accordance by
feliowing the proceoiure as laid V’
Bench in the case of
KARNATAKA reported in 1t99:§'(

of the directions issued’,’V’VL’et..I.i_Vine Cemtnissioner
has not followed’ (town by the
Division Bench and has merely
given a belongs to Harijan
Caste: direcfions issued by

this Colift h.es’eon}p1ied with.

3, _’}’heL ASA’ relying on the statement of

I have heard the learned counsels for the

<'L:~—-~

5. On perusal ofthe order passed by

Commissioner, it is quite evident that the ._pr0eed,i;1re in

detemxmmg the ease of the respondcnfi ‘as’: A

Peclda Reddy’s case referreciizo sujir_.e; has-sn:e’§t}:*:;er fieeri L.

complied nor followed the

respondent-grazltee to V _ Caste, nothing
has been stated shy the

6. order passed by
the contrary to the
ciirectiores” ..issueci..” Court; in Writ Peflfion

No.218_66/2390 azspcsecaeear on 7.1 1.2000 and the order

V’ thy the Iiiiiisievn Bench in Pedda Reddy’s case,

set aside. The order of the Deputy

C»on1;missio_Ii4erT merely Confirming the orders of the

Commissioner without giving reasons also

e: d.eser§es to be set aside for want of adequate reasons.

7. For the aforesaid reasons I pass the foliowing

order:

°%<e

The order dated 29.1 1.2002 Vida
passed by the Assistant Commissionsf
No.P'I'CL.145/97-98 and the orgiéi' V
Annexure-I) passed by the A.

Case No.P’l’CL. CR.

The Assistant Commissionéf’ ft) fsconsider
the case with procedure as
envisaged :Bench in Pedda
Redd}”s % « % A

Accord ingly.

Sd/-

fudge

grist % ‘