High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Bheemashankar Sahakari … vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Bheemashankar Sahakari … vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
was-n

Efi T'?!

"iG'r'I'  6?? 'fiFs'fiié'?x"i'.F\'ii'r'x, "mw"'G" WEE
 £iAfi'$i3 "1'!-{IS THE 13?}? DAV D5'  f!f3{'§$"--.__

EEFDRE

 ms H{3fi"BhK MR.-£!UB'¥'I{3E   

w.z>.no.;m2¢ or 2um%.:£'R'!
nnh . ' V
Via' A
3,  - .;%§'--k"£€§§V 1:5 2'3': ' ' '"-*_'a:r}*§su'*V -

 ssazrasfsszzzianjj aw 12%: szcawrnn ,
'-fifieafirfififfié'.  ma
zxzauswnzms,' .. ' 
 ;~';€}¥;§._£3I~¥A. "~~'.3ANGAin'Jfi.E

 ,.ff3"iiz nxfiwrma or sucsan AND
"  L3E|}*!F!;SBIjDNER FDR cam: nwsnomam,
_ .._t:=';~rc:.r;:;u_:.E muss.
'   :=;=:2.n..ui fin .-nun?

'51: .ri:u~.ij1In.1n r -r er-Innnsu I'
'.r*;:.;-'_ -13» J"1r1.I'u'I.I.._I.:. av-annu H

A me' ms uznnc-1-on,
" V -::=».mr.:n 'v"'I LL.r'u'.§E,- T
"'1::3nnsa1H:>.L. mnurc,
34::-amun -uxswnxc-r.

'aha 

mr wri.3.vazmra, "386? FOR 121 a R2.
% as - snmn: ~

imz-3 we 31 um: UNDER .#.a'rIc1.a:s%22e;m4n 221 on'.

THE G1':-NS'£'I'I'U"£'J.'CIN BF INDIA 'I'D QUASH  IHPUCN§'fl



MDTIFICATIQN UT. 13.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE R1 vxnz
AHHEHURE B Afln ETC.

Thia petition coming an for fgrgrimifiéry

hearing in 'B' Group this day, the Cufirt-qafiézfihéru

f¢lldwing:--

' .

The patitionar--5u g§'r...V Fa¢'t:<;ry _ ia A A"¢jhawJk.1a$ngingL'

the nntificatian gated 1fi}i,£Qfl6'isSr§d_By the 1"

1nr§3Qrg*§=_in withdrawin

\ g ' "   ._ '1'. s I
certain vullagas cams under the gurlsdictlen cf

u all
13

E; t_h§v§ hafigd the caunsal for petitioner

afifiuanvarfimefit Advucata gar ragpgndents,

 "*_*.$@Wdfivastab1ishing the sugar factory by the

 .§atitififiérQ certain 'villages are earmarked for

rfiatnarrfit af the petitioner-sugar factory and

n'the rugarcane grawn in such area are aupposad to

2f b§ sugyliad to the patitioner--sugar factory only.

are as gar the imgugned _rder, certain ville

v

113

attacnaa ta tua sugarcsna gr*wfi area of the

patitiunar--campa"V has Dééfi tazén if'f ny



temgararilj-r assigning to the 3"' respondent-~

factory. This order is called in question

writ petition .

4:. According to tho…_;Laa.\:-nod”iifiovatnmanit»_

Ativotzata, since the factoty ‘:=g’.*as:’

and in ordnr to facilintnta tiha i§:Jga.»:*§:’S:na._V_VgrownAra;;

the 1′” r-napondent has fiastsnti ._vv:.’i.’I’lI’:’.’.!I1.l§if$1i’.I<:l order
temporarily to nupply the
sugarcane to the to him.

it is onl§;”t”;ainpn1§ar_;?L ibeat interest of

tho i’.ar?t1or_o”.w _ V.

5», fli.’i=1.E!$£’_:t:1i3hd”~_TUe:3§JI&3aal ro.1:- the petitioner
subusitzxgséi 1:hai1:..io%fan:_”‘t.ho1i§h the 3″‘ respondent in not

onuahiranjnw and'””it..” is also not established, the

..°*éVGo§§£nm£nt nan nasaed the impugned order.

stage learned Giwernment Advocate

§ubmit3″””that 1″ respondent has requested to get

in .t_he”interim order vacated, as the farmers are

it “~V_VV”un5ab1-a to supply the sugarcane to the petitioner,

sinca the gnatitioner is not .fum::tioning. If the

Vp-atitionarwfactory is not functioning, the

farmers will be put to hardship and it is the

/
8-.»

at:

now

fiuty uf the 1 respandent to make alternative
arran-gpamant to enable the farmers to supply the
sugarcane grawn by them to any o§h§£ flfifiga£
factory. A . u

arzier is temgtzrrargr, as”=t;:iie 5:etii:_it;m§lr–V§f;a§¢Viiory is

nut wmrkinq, this paubE”i$ fir thé b§ihion that

patitzianau is not4’i:sVt1_’;ii1i1:-:El::’:f»;f{£*vV:A.Vaxfiyhraliaf at this

staga.

is fiifipb’éfi bf giving linarty to thé gatitiafiér

WI

ta éA§_Il[Cfl’.l.'<t12I»33iVI:'..'1T't: 'Ei:a_'T"zf§Epj'c-ndants 1 and 2 to restore
its 'wi1laqe5:} If "fifich representation is filed,

fifia gfiegpanfientg 'in accordance with law shall

' ¢ansid¢;. the same. It is alwaya oyen for the

u' §a5fififlfi¢nt# 1 and 2 ta take appropriate actian in

ffia Egét interest af the farmers.

sa/-_
Judge