.. 1 ..
$3 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATES THIS THE 28%' DAY OF JULY, 2008
BEFGRE
THE H{)N'}:3¥..E MRJUSTICE RAVI MALl'£§iA"§I;IV" : "
WRIT PETITION N0.975O 01?'%2o09 t':}1\t%';';7'{1$:,?} % A'A
BETWEEN :
1.
Sri. C.S.Z£3’0m1appa,
S/0 Late Shantappa,
Aged 42 years; .
2. Sri.C:.N.AshwatI1, _ .
S/0 Late Nin.gappa:»””‘ .
Agéd 38 3. Sri.K1.1tii %
S/9 Late Anfi;a13c1aiay,._ ‘
Aged 3:-:=:.a1″s; ‘ ”
… ….. .. ‘
8/ (:1 Laizfi
Agcé – . .
T’ j V ‘ Sn’. C’AI’§…»…I oyfapfit-1,A
_ _ ‘_ fig late «:1. i<;_.Ka1appa,
.% « Agté years;
e-fe- résidents of Channapura Wflage,
V ..__GOWda]1i Post, Semavarpet Taiuk,
‘T .4N”;K;.'{D) PIN 571 235.
* . . . . PE’i’I’I’IONERS
” “(BY sRLG.BALAKR:sHNA smsmy, ADVOCATE.)
%Qt__,._..,
AND :
Sri.C.S.Ningara_§u,
S/0 Late Shanthappa C.B.,
Aged about 35 years,
Chazmapura (V), Gowdalli Post,
Ssmavarpet Taluk,
N.K.(D), PEN 571 235.
‘k-ttir.’
This Writ Peti’£ion.7is fi1eafivV1fi’1§ier’AIficles 226 ané
227 of the Constitution -101″ ifi1dia_.pfajsging to quash the
order dated 12.6.2008:pas;sfid’ i’:’2,_O.S_-.N”G.v.”’48/2002 on the
file of the CifIii”c_.§”;;1dg65. (J;.”.3f2i13.;}., ‘Sémfiférpet the certified
Copy 0f whiszfu 4is5jpr0d1;1Ce£i.V.at.A;mexur6~A and I.A.N0.V£II
be ailowed as_:-f:r1f3’.ye-Ci.f§515famIici.§:tc;v.:
This on for prelilninaly heezfing
t.hisVd_ay, the madé the fo11owir1g:«
_ . . . .
— -®ti{io1*1ers seek for a writ of certiorari to
quash th’¢@n»&1er dated 12.6.2008 passed by the iearned
Ciivii “.;,,I’§§dge {J’r.Dn.), Somwarpet, 011 I.A.No.V}EI in
‘ _C};,’S;:N’0.48/2002.
Li
. , RVfg::3;i<)r§k1j1EN*r.:':%.
2. The petitioners’ appiicatirsm under ()rd,ér-_ :26
Rule IOA read with Section 151 CFC for
a Court Commissiener was rejected by t1f1_6; ‘E1f.ia’}.A_1′(3(‘4)1,:I3’t.–«T_A
Hence: this petition.
3. The learned (3€)1J,§(1S€:3f’ .f(§1″ pgétitidigérs.
submitted that ‘aha appointziimfit Qi’ the «_Vt{,3(3′:;111:fg.jssioI1ez’
would be necessaIy ._._.’%jiAI1 ” the locai
investigation, which x\%.e2..1I(i’~.assi:3t ‘tins in realizing
the t.r1 ith ‘ ‘ ~..
2 I Vhaxfé *~f}’1e learned counsei for the
pe£iti031ers.
51:”? j j?mc ma: Court, while rejecting the said
“‘.a_pp_1i{:3;*.:ié::1, some to the conciusian that there: is
Y’
“1
sufhciezfit mfidence before it ta} appreciate the case made
. u11t._.by bth the parties. ‘Therefore, there is no necessity
‘fsfappointment of the Commissioner. This reasoning of
/J”