.23.'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCI-LAT
DHARWAD. _
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2;0*I--oj I
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICIE *
Writ Petition No. 63831 of 20'G§I{LB--RE§j "
Between: I I I I
SHRI SHANTAYYA DHUPAD '@...cHI_K'i{AIȎATI"I -
S/OIRRAYYA, AGE: 45 YEARS _ «
OCC: HITTANAGI I 2 I
TQ:sAUNI:)ATI, DIST:}3-ELGAZUEVII» . .. '_PE3'ITI'I'IONER
(By Sri 1-1 M DHARI3-3oI§ID_,_ I-\:4)vO.(:iAT_E}jf«
And:
1. THE STAT_E--G15-'E{--'3II§NA'F.£IIiA -- J
DEPT. , PANCHAY.A'FH
M.S.BUILDING, B.ANGA_LORE
2. THEEVRRESIISVENT "
4-" - zII,_;I'.;;A RARg:HAYATH___I3ELGAUM
'DIST BELQAIIM
3. '1:'IHIE'IC}IVi'EIE' EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PAN;:I§I:ATH OFFICE, SAUNDATTI
DIET BE:-LGvA;UM
" THE SE(§RETARY
., GRAM PANCHAYAT SUTAGATT1
* ._T'Q;SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
MADIWALAPA SHIVARAYAPPA PUJAR,
" "Age: 40 YEARS
ix.)
OQAGRICULTURE, R/O I-IITTANAG1
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
6. SHR1 SRIKANT SI-IIVARAYAPPA PUJAR
Age: 36 YEARS
OCOAGRICULTURE, R/O E-HTTANAG1
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM ._
7. SMT. MANJULA SRIKANT PUJARI,
Age: 30 YEARS _ '
OCC:E-IOUSEHOLDWORK , R/'0 H1.'I"I'ANAGI.
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM .. RE'S.POI\?DP=3IAIT
This writ petition is fiiétt under A1*.tic1es._226 an'ct"227 of the
Constitution of India praying. :10' q_ua%{s'h the _in':.puz'31Xed order dt.
30.05.2009 passed by the "*2'"d_._"respQndent under
NO.CwPM / PRESIDENT/APPEAL';'"l V2'QC»8-O9 AnneXure--Q and
etc. .
This petition "pr_e'iirnvina.r'y hearing in 'B' group
this day, the Courtmatie the following:
The petitioner' correctness of the order
impugned ; dated loassed by the 2314 respondent in
f;ir:o.ceedVin”gs f No:CtPM /};1;esident/AppeaI/ 1 IA/2008-2009 vide
Annextire-Q it further direction to the 3rd respondent to
i’v._T””‘disposeAof filed by the petitioner which is pending
‘*~i’–i’a,c1it;ttta.;;3,tit>r; tr} No,THA PM S/GRA PM/APPEAL/VU–102/2008-
4″~–.iéoo”9 ntesented this writ p tition.
/
Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1. Respondents
Nos. 2 to 4 are served and unrepresented.
4. After careful perusal of the order impugned passedibfifthe
2nd respondent, it is manifest on the face of the orderiiirnpugii-e_d’ _
that the 2% respondent has concluded contrary to ‘the.:irelbief:sought” =
for by the petitioner before the 2nd responden.tdb:y iv;a.y..of- aniappeal
against the order passed by the Srdrespondent. Thea.’si1’foje_c.t nfl;attier_:” ;
involved is for the limited purpose fo’1*.._ivacating–the’ interim order
granted in favour of the peti_tione1fiiandthevyproceedings pending
adjudication before the 3″? respondent
proceeded passed by the Gram Panchayat
dated 21.09.li99S in entry found in the register
is in accordance 2nd respondent has got no such
theiiipirayer sought in the appeal. Therefore,
such-. order’ vi.l:s”~_n’otf~si.éstainable and liable to be rejected at the
iii””th.reshoild__ wit1r;o1;t’..~ expressing any opinion on merits. Therefore,
“-«ii.l’jv’:hei’order iinpugned is a non-speaking order passed by the 2nd
ire.spo.n’d_enft5. Hence it is liable to be set aside. The matter stands
. ‘iiiirlernitted to the 3rd responden to dispose of the appeal filed by the
..–P’°”‘°”‘°’°””mw’M
petitioner in accordance with law after affording reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner and the reSpor1der1ts«4 to and
dispose of the same expeditiously on merits and stric’tLy’~».%in
accordance with Eaw at any rate within three monthsfltorrit’
of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pmg/