High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri A.M.Devaraj vs Sri.P.G.Chengappa on 28 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri A.M.Devaraj vs Sri.P.G.Chengappa on 28 May, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And C.R.Kumaraswamy
B

1

1

1% '3'"!-IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY or MAY 2009
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MAN3UNATi§:~~.:.Vv     %

AND

THE HOBYBLE MRJUSTECE {2._R. K%uM1AaAswA%:4Y*V ‘ % L
CONTEMPT or coum” CASE :ao;%2fie-211i2{j0e

EEN:

SR1 A.M.DEVARAJ
SIC} LATE A A MALLEGCJWDA
AGED ABOUT 5? YEARS: ‘

MEMBER BOARD £35 RE.&%:ENT§ ‘ ‘: ‘A
UNIVERSITYQEVAG R1%cuL*a1:RAL. SCIEi’»¥CES. .

BANGALORE?’ GKVK TcaMPus:V _
BANGALORE;_ —

re: :2 SHANKAREQOWDA _ 4

3/0 LATE CHIKKfi«M UN.1YA GOLiDi-EKLURUBUR
AGED ABQUT 44 YE}1.RS’-= ‘-

MEMBER .£_’$OARE’) OF REGENTS

U’:\éI\/ER:’:”i.I”i’Y ear: AGRICULWRAL SCIENCES

‘VBANGALORE c;¥<'~.4;< "CAMPUS

BANGALGRTE-V '= A " . .. .coMPm:NANTs

: (BY"SRVIfl: -V' 1A'Kéi1afM1b¢AéAYAr¢A, ADVOCATE)
am; ._ .. V.

‘ ” 5 1 5RI’;?:G.CH§!”€GAPPA ‘
VKIE CHANCELLOR

‘UN1VERSIT’:’ OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
5;é.Nc:.AwaE GKVK CAMPUS

…_3ANrsm_oRE

‘4SR§’vCHIKKA DEVAIAH

-3345 REGISTRAR

THE UNIVERSITY DF AGRICULTURAL

SCIENCES, GKVK CAMPUS «
BQENGALORE . . ACCUSED
(BY SR1: R SRIDHAR HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL

GCDXJERNMENI” ADVOCATE)

__ i:.ecc:I?3ecl..gr»thisigrgetition is closed.

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 ;¢’lN{3 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT_.?R_%EEDING
AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR HAVING WILLFULLY AND.l.._i3’ELI’BERA”fi’Ei.Y
DISOBEYEE) THE ORDERS/DIRECT IONS ISSUED BY THIS HON?BLE’~.CQURT “IN

ex).

W.P.NO.1S1CiO/2008 AND W.P.NO.1S102/2008 DATED 8.12.2008 if3_3iNNVEXtl’RE+B

THIS CONTEMPT OF comer case COMINGIONIFOR IORfiER$I’BfEi§Oi{lE we 7.

COURT THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH, J., MADE THE F§)LLO’.’lf}N(3r:.7′
Learned counsel for the accusedVE4I’$1ibrn_its til-e:tI_IIn Qiiew of the

counter affidavit filed by the second7::accwuEIseci,..Ithe petition does not

‘,

survivefilior consideration, Accorrjiing. have not
violated the directions 3udge in both the
writ petitions. He. accnsedvuniversity has not
convened _’iniIritation to the complainants.
According to hirn} one convened by the university,
for which boththe co§11.ioAiei’n’ants:Vi$rere invited and he further submits
that :.gA.héfleyVei.’rII:.ai,g~pee:tll1g be convened in accordance with the

fitatute; th’e.lcon1I;§le.ivnenteiwouid be invited for the same.
I:;VviewIof tiilesiibmissions made by the learned counsel for the

Sd/-

Judge

sd/1
Fudge

KM