IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 25*" day of September, is &
my-01211;: %
THE H01-PBLE MR JUSTICE e«vfisjrri'L1Ezina§A
Writ Petition No 9#85..qf20U5:lGM--f§§,EfS}_:"*
BETWEEH
I
SEE KB£NDUMADH~A_VACHAR;». '
S./O LATE K NARAYANACHAE'
AGED 54 YEARS VVVV V _ ,V
SR1 K P s;R1IT_r}i*i*V.:"_'
AQE1:+4e YEARASA 'V V
S/Q R«UDRAPPzx._ ~ '
SR1 1;: 'S. RAMARA Q_ u =._
; mgr) 65'-YEERS
~ [53 sHANxm:.>.,._RAr3
_V s.zé2'«;<-s, mNGU RAD
' T:x_:;z?;r3»v6'2T.Y'§;ARs
"sHA~g«KAR RAG
AL,'LAR:f: ALL R/O KABATUR VILLAGE
SORABA 'I'ALUK'
SHIMOGA DISTRICT PETITION ERS
{By Sri K Sridhar, Adv. for
M] s Vagdevi Associates]
1 THE STATE OF KAFQNATAKA
F\'EI"F BY ITS SECRETARY
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ._
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 1
S}-IIMOGA
3 THE SHIMOGA [I)IS'I'RiC'PCE--£\_iTRAL-.,
CO--OPERA'I'IVE BANK ' '
SHIMOGA, REP'? BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
4 SR1 CHANDRAHASA'vmv;-m_sA.Y:.A SE13/A ' _
SA}-IAKARA SANGHA i
KUBATURVEI.LAGE/" *
SORABA_TALU"_i{ I ~ :
SHIMOQA
5 NAT1oNAL.A;GR1c%JLTU.§eAL~*
ENSIJ-RANGE EEQMFANY
$.HANKA§%ANAi-zAYANA BUILDING
M._.G. 1.RoA1:)£3is3~;GAL'oTRE..-- 560 001
REPT BY yrs 'MANA<3_E;i2_
5 THE D'i'RECT(f)'R cs' ECONOMICS AND
; STATiSTlCS '
_~ "1,GQVERNM E'r:T._Q_FA KARNATAKA
BA"mA;,oRE RESPONDENTS
— ‘Di-Bjy V Manjunath, HCGP for R-1, 2 85 6;
‘ A N Krishnaswamy, Adv for R-5;
. Chandrshckaraiah, Adv., for R-3]
TI’-E13 PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
A ¥F’rHE”~~.coNs’rmmoN OF’ INIDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENEQRSEMENT DATED 12-7-2005 ISSUED BY THE S!XTH
‘ RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE – H AND ETC. .
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR’ I°RELIMiNARY HEARING,
‘B’ GROU? THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R 3 E R
Writ petitioners are person who elaimfl be
agienlturists, also claim that in respect of _._of
their crops for the year 2003-04, loss if any-,. ..’§x2′:as”–eovere’d -«..
and to M compensated under an agxieeiiiltzzrai
scheme for the year :20O3-04.7
2. While it is the Ve1ision’»etoi”et,1;eVV “”petitione1’s”‘Vthet the
Crops did fail for the tyjeg:,» psa1¢icu1ax1y for
gowing paddy; respondents «-~
first “govern1:nent and fifth respondent
national egrictn1tnra1.VA’iz1st1rance company — which, it is
e1aiIned” had the risk of failure of crop and the
——- Shimoga district central cooperative
society agency for implementation of the insurance
-Vseheifne ?–_ the second respondent Deputy Commissioner
it it ‘ respondent being local agicultural society and
respondent director of economic and statistics —~
“”.oVVVfieve not responded to the pleas of the petitioner to
«ii-
eompensate them in a proeer manner and contending’-that
while in the very area other farmers whose
had failed, had been compensated, only ,
have been discriminated
.iI1terfereI1ce in Writ jurisdictiQ11.4_
3. in the staternentv Q1: of the
respondents 1 and 2, are denied
and the petitio:11ets’:- The version ef
the fifth is that there is a
iivhose paddy crop failed
and wiiio iiadv: and that of the
petitioners. °’ ~
V-‘:e..i’?:£f12en the miattervwas heard for some time on such
“p1e:=;eii11gs4 respective stand of the parties, Sri
Siidher, , eounsei for the petitieners seeks
to Withdraw the Writ petition, reserving liberty
A petitioners to pursue the remedies elsewhere in
vV.a.c_:e§erdanee with law. A memo is also filed to this effect’
5
5. While liberty is granted to the petitioners to jfiursue
the matter eisewhere in accordance with law.,«’~thiS__’_
will not entertain another writ petition on_th§§_’ gzaujsa ‘V
of action again.
6. Writ petition is dismissédfias wit1F1dravqf1′.: