'-AN;;é..}" '
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, _
vamp THIS THEE 13%: DAY or-' AUfii»$§:'~ "
BEFORE: Q é
THE HOITBLE MR. JIISTICJE "MOIi1}§Hj
wan: PETITION NO. 91?
BETWEEN
SRIG:zsU;eE$2----1_ ,
Sm C; S RAh&;3Ki§1§SHNA.fi MA 3.3 '(R3
ENGINEER C:a}V1%:*z*1<e,cxc*1?g3mr:.L;\S:~'§-- 3.) '
LEEKKALA 1'vTH--:i_c§z0s'S, ASHQKNAG§AR, TUMKUR
(REP. BY %1+§.Is'£i0Ur%:SEL--.L 'SEDDAEAFI, 310.2554
14TH GROSS," vi'£:f4T}~I 1MAm~,~' HSR _~ LAYOUT, IS'?
13'? sE(:1'<i)'1:.._' _
TUMKUR
V * RESP()NDEN'I'S
THIS w.P. FILED "PR.P.YIIF£G~'"'I'0'~~..'jCALL FOR THE
RECORDS AN£)gD:REGI'""I~I1I§: RA.%;sPNI)IE'NTs TO SETTLE
THE CLAIMS §~Bi3;--.LS) 0!?' "1?_II~Iei PE'§'I"i--'.l'€)NER AS MENTIONED
IN THE scHE:I3t3jI,I3 Rs), ~5_.o2;-- LAKES TOGETHER WITH
EIv:I:>/ FSD 5WI'_i-'H 'AN. .II%I*§'£t.R'E.£§'i' AT" THE RATE 0}? 18%
FROM THE I3\A'i'{~:f«:.;IfI' IIA'$_I:'ALII__E_N 'DUE TILL THE DATE OF
THEIRvAC*:"U[A:;. PAfiI:IgI*§rII4:rv"If.;=.NI3 _E'§'C.
. THIS "4liV'i_?1.'i'I'"I'f[.(i)I\I.",' CQIIMING ON FOR PRLHEARING,
. t T2I_Ia%.,I3;§.'=; frag" MADE THE FOLLOWENG :
ORDER
.’ . H “‘}’l*V1é ‘?’-Ifiitract betweeztl the 13€iit:i()ner and the
f_»respI)n(ie:n£–Agim1lturai Produce Markettjng Cenlmittee,
A ‘*:Lf’i”r;>.rV $12011: APMC, admittefily is not a stamiory contract
féifiing withm the definition or the term wider A:rt:I’.cle.
299 of the COI}st.itu’I:ion 9:’ India. So also, admittedly,
the axnounts payable under the contract, according
i
Kr’
to the petitioner was one since 5 years
The claim for recovery of moneys underffziie ‘fioIit1’2ict i
is one arising from oontracfttxaiti’
therefore, it is inappropriate for’-this eoiiriii. exercise ,
of extraordinary writ. iincier. the
Constitutiorz. of India,’ ‘:1
In that vigw of £1″ie:.%t,»it’iV’one1* must. m
relegated to “iiiigation. This View
of mine of the Apex Court
in wo’.eL1_)’_A _ vs. URION or INDIA
reporteol’ 513 and in the case of
oo;.§LY:oAsi . .ie’§ris. 1 mmosrmn PETROLEUM
V’,C0_i§P(§i§£L’:Iv’IQN LTD., reported in 1994441300 450.
Tiie petition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-‘
JUDGE
V’ esg