High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Vijay Gangaram Hasure vs The Commissioner For Food And … on 19 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shri Vijay Gangaram Hasure vs The Commissioner For Food And … on 19 February, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA  
CIRCUIT BENCH AT omawao  j   

omen "n-:15 THE 19*" may or Feamqaair,   T  Q 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOl--£1}2N:'$HANTANA6OG--i$'A§§' 

wnrr PETITION No.§1231/Azooétaméfifggj A

BETWEEN:

Vi}'ay Gaiiga;-'$.11 }i~asij15$. "  :

Age 4;'?.yeéizs",'  2  "

?ricc:'Deale1.";   '  _

12/9 Honmha1:2;§%5%9%13e9'%% ' %

Hukkczii Talulg "  "  " 

13e,igau1i1».I)is1:I*i{:t.  "  ..Petiti0I1er

 B: S. V'Kam_.f-ficv, Adv. ,)

" ?i.'"The« Cizmxissiener for Food

 8:; §)ivii--"Supp1ies
No.3, Cunningham Road

 ..  8a::1galore»56O 052.

' V2. ***i('Ir1e Qeputy Commissioner (Food)

Belgaum-690 Of} 1.

3. The Tahsildar



HukeI'i~59 1809
Belgaum District.

4. Sanju Sadashiva Shintre
Age Major, Occ : Agricultupev--V   
R/0 fionnihalli, HukkeriTa1uk  A f: '
Belgaum District.   '

5. Nivrutti Mallappa Mandekérif»
Age Major, Occ : AgI'iCu3.t11fn?, 2
R/0 Honnihalii, I-I'L11_{kez*iV"Ta1:}.'1( 
Belgaum District.  _  ;g 3  "

6. Madhukar '¢?itk1al:1'v'iz3§.3:rder dated 5--12--2()G8 passed by the R1 in Appeal

TN<::.l82/2{}O5~0'? at Axmexum-M and the 0I'dfiI' dated 22-1-

" " " 2007 passed by R2 at Ammxilre-«ti.



This writ petifion coming on for 
this day the Court made the fol1oWi:£1g:- '-- , V' * L,  V

The order at Axmexuxe-M,:4'dgitee1 5. 2003 

by the first respondent as' as the 'oI\"éierfi*pe.esed by

the Deputy Comzt1:i’esior1’ei;’V_ L”J3.nne)o.ireV-H, dated

22.1.2007 are called ?:vx’it petition.

2. by the first

respondeiit r_;ot.Va order, inasmuch as it does
not ‘ any V coming to the conclusion.

HO’fJ¢€’J€I’, tf1e_Ao3’der of the Deputy Commissioner assigzs

«eeftaiii Veiid reasons for coming to the conclusion.

passed by the first respondent vide

Afi:1e::i%11%:4i\II is an unreasoned order, the same is iiabie

“!3£}..h<3vV{'}:I3;-ilsiled and Consequently the matter has to be

'"1V'e1rie,ard by the first respondent. As aforementioned, the

' V' '"5£)ep1:1ty Ciommissioner has passed a detailed reasoned

N/§

M 4"

order and therefore same cannot be interfered With.

Since the matter has to go back to the first resyemtient,

this Court declines to comment anything

of the matter. Accordingly, the feilowing. ” ” ‘V

Order at Am”1exure–M, dateé

the first respondent stands.rq11asIied; ‘ ‘ Matte ‘ ” ,

to the first respondent for aeeordance
with law.

of accordingly.

Sd/5..

Judge