Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Smt Cesilya D Souza W/O J.M.Dsouza vs Department Of Mines And Geology on 17 December, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019.»
PRESENT "  t

THE HoN'BLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF    '

AND  

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEf*A.§§;B'C)PAi\iN,r:x   

WRIT PETITION No.338..ij'8../20i0(GM--}MMS)"'  
Between : i i '

Srnt.Cesi1ya D'Souza _  A
W/o.J.M.D'SouZa..  V
Aged about 4~'7_.year's  _, _
R/a.GreenVaVlieyi'1"ouse. 1  
Bodanthila Vi11afg.e."'P'ost   _  
Mangalore D;iK."'--- 1I;__ H  *    Petitioner

 ' {By  J.Chouta, Adv.)

And:_.,

 it  D'e;o'ar.tme'nt of and Geology

»  by«.its_DVeputy Director

 -._ V1\/i.§.:.4Va;?..:C.or11p1.e_X. Pandeshwar

'-Ma.ngaIore 575 001.

)2. Distriety Commissioner

 A Dakshina Kannada District

  Ayiviangalore, D.K. 575 001. ...Respondents

(By Sri R.G.Kol}e, AGA)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

A' 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the



 

order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the let respondent
produced hereto as Annexure-A.

This Writl Petition Coming on for Preliminary

Hearing, this day, Chief Justice made the following
order :  

ORDER

J .S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):

Mr.Sandesh J.Chouta, Ad:2’_””ifer« r_th_e

Mr.R.G.Ko1le, AGA for Respon.dents”1péin.d ” 0′ it E

2. Learned counsel for_.__V1?§esponden’ts._lVpvviand 2
acknowledges, that no {offered to the
petitioner herein’ .beforVe””tl*ie order dated

16.11.201()§. passed. It is

aeknow1ed–ged;q_at.the hands’ of-t.h’e learned counsel for

the respondents? that impiigned order dated 16.11.2010

hadV’adverese”eivil consequences quay the petitioner, and

eeé:,e_

‘1E;;l’.oi.mperative for the respondents to follow 19$»

_ fuiesaof justice before passing the impugned

In View of the factual/legal position noticed

1 he-reinahove, the learned counsel for the respondents

0′ states, that the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 may

be treated as having been revoked. He however. states

that liberty be granted to the respondents to issue

notice to the petitioner in terms of principles of

justice.

4. In View of the st3.te:ment._<rr1ade i4e.ailrniCd'i'.,,

Counsel for the respondents, lllpet1*t.iVon

been rendered infruetuous 1~evc–c¢;t:c$'n"¢r' the
order dated 16.11.20io,__ Bes.Alt'hat.:"asJ'~_jt rnl.é1y;"ili'olerty is

granted to the 1'espondents to against the

petitioner, on tl1e.i_s'_ame;_ca€us.e of following the
rules of nati'11'al-ljusltilce. _

5.V1,VDisposve’d’of’ins th’aforesaid terms.

sax’-«
Chis)’. lustice

Sfixi?

EUEGE

T Index: yes/no


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.151 seconds.