High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.C.K.Gopinath Rao S/O Krishna … vs The Taluk Agricultural Produce … on 18 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri.C.K.Gopinath Rao S/O Krishna … vs The Taluk Agricultural Produce … on 18 January, 2010
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
3 w.;rf4%:'~5i22s;o9

EN THE HISH com? cur KARNATAKA, 3A§4:$}§¢c;§§E%%%%A J  T
aama was THE 13?" DAY :a:}é V;;¢gr  V%

BETWEEN: V  '
Sri.C.K.GGPi%£fi.'E"H RA,»;:--;w "   ' j V
3:0 C.KRl8HNA Sage.  4 _  t 
AGE : 75' .YEAFiS,"C§€;;C:_F<2E._'f£RED'$ER'1lCE,
ram AMf€TUHRVARSi-€¥Ni,.6¥3.FEE"E"H ROAD,
Vii's§OBH£aNA$AR;.' S?-%.§?9?A"r:zaPRAsAB
NO.23Gf64, 3? . 'A' mass, 25*" MAEN,
J;¢sYANAGAR§.T"'BLO$K;~» "
BANGELQARE .- 359; £369 %

 %  %%%%%  ,.,PE"¥'iT¥GiKEER

 ($3; S?§.?s&;.5..R';§§;ii§<_§J?»1AR§ Adv.)

 mmazaix AG?-3${}L?E}RAL pmauaz

AA ;  CG»-'GP. ?v1AR§{§T§3'%§G Sfi{3%ET'£' LTQ1
_ T 'E£§~'iADRA3f33.THL QEPBY ETS '8EfiRETfi§"£'}.
 'RANGAPPPC SiR{3§..E,
BHA§'RA'e.?A?'HL



2. Eeirzg aggrieved by the same, the.f:etificnéf.:preAferféc§V. 

are appeai before the Kamataka Apgffeilatg"§:'ii:;;n"é'I,' -;Béng.g:§5r§';- §.'1

Appea: No.726£2UG3 which a!s;:. %:m7= pé:s:a$mrJm

Rs.8,3G3.38f- with 18% ir;?,~er§s2 p,ai;" -  

3. The said order.i*§a:f":,b;%§§1i.:;?1'é'EE%?j§§<fi'Vin this writ petition
er: the greunci tfiaét'  based on an enquiry
repart     'Karnata5<a So-sperative
Sccietie}*3";5\¢}.,é£;ggv  efz;3'.<§ViiiVf§,?: report, the Presidiefit and
AsszstatfiA3gc§fefar%;¢?:f;W§§wf§ ':§%;.:;po:§dent were aisso féabie fer afiegefi

misagprepriétiafs.'V?-§§»§feiéa%_§,"§§%bE£Ei*y* has mt been fixed on them,

  Hen¢s§Qt?'§§x'petfitiozééi :*a..;a_ad;& a grayer fiat iize surcharge pmaeeciings

 éfsétéafgd aigaimsiihérfi i$ ta be set aside and a fresh enquiry 'ma £6 be

§:?:§tEé£e;;é a?5gEéV§'§;»2:t aiéf '£3929 three §3é£"$t'..':=i"'¥$.

$;~   The Seamed ceasnsef forfhe 'S53 respondent suimziis fiat

A X9t}?¢év§%%é%;2§.sgr:ed arders da net dezsesva far my énterferenae by ihéa

–..CQA§§;;rt fiance both the erders are passed an the basis 0? the enquiry

” ~ féfiod. “X

4 W.P.1b’*228;U§

5. Szr§.Zahee’r Ahmed, ieamed AddifiovernmergfVfifivfiéaate

supported the impugned erefers and submittecf ta

§e’c§ti0n(

5. when thia matter came L1§’h;eés_ETf§§ an’

the parties; expressed to settle fh-c-§ zr*ra;3;tter.”an,d ‘i’:–e.=;2%1′<';;eVVi:a¥2:é":"nai5e'ttar §s '

mated today. During the .ceur$Ve.«-cf" the "praceeii1ngs}..vi§1e iearneé
coimsei for ihe petitioner –afi– §s.}?,§S0i– by way of

fiemané Draft ansr."–fif3e sge't'rz"e* "~.3;E§:«.«';:+_ 'b.ééen: :§ficepted by the $3'

r:e$poncj§ri§:V[Vaf3T<§ _,§oi§:::'it4VV?*a3::e:;f;?Ix:~:_'has tsééfé fiiad to that efiect in view 9?
the Jainfifaéemé -;§§V§Ve'i§j_'jVb%§k5"tEf{é'»4§:art¥es, {his writ petitien Ea hereby

disposjead o'§, "'~»%¥i the-. cE?.:4§s"Eéia ir3 fespeci of the very pwceedings

'~ _aga.%';f§i%:t §etit£ofié§'st–afids eioaeé.

Sd/-'
JUDGE