High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S Jayaram vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 19 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Jayaram vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 19 November, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna


as Tim I-HGI-i czwm’ ‘sfE£»*mE_1’f€”,i*Q(Z}jfi’._’§f;_i”V.’ ”

Eflfl’

‘mm 1-immrm rm. JE}S’i?:£CE»:§ fP:{‘i?’§€s;;i’jZL«.: % Ak 7

“I’HjEi l’:~§C}N’BLE H.s.:{E%§§_?§uNr€;;

WRIT APPEAL m~gav:;.4m:; :La~B1:m3

BETWEEK: ‘

i

Sié. H »
AGED’.5B»’;’_J£fT ‘
R§§3IDE’HT’JR.!1{1{E.§R xmmzsa

_ — ‘

m M m M W
A3)’ LATE” §{2%WDA

3 ‘.mE:3 amt}? 2%
R33’? :%<:3.3§§,

A Q " * . rammaxxvmv I..AY§'£}T
m£R2mfixE.:ALL:

* swam

4″ mémzmmm

wig}, mm wmw

., ” = AGED Again’ 45 arm
= Rim :m.3za,,

“I”.&LA€1&II§1’E§’Y L&YG’E}”IZ
AflI LI,
B1%.Z’¥$a§:.L$RE ~ 36$%4

Sm Hé.§JA%

W56» LATE §§tIxi%£P?.a
AGED Ami?! 54 Ymm
RJAT 519.32%,

*£’Ai!§.C&I.FiiEEY mg?

LI
mxmamag – 56:3 05:4

(By an: X g Bamsmmfl, Anvu}

REE :

……-.-….«;..n……

3;

THE smrs or mammm I%Is’:A ?5$’:*i:’I’%’3g :::’H:i:s>%,<a3¢'<§%;*%

vmrmm 5»(".)UEEA
Ba%§IGi5i,ORE

THE S"I'£§.'i'E 91?

PRBKZWAL SECRETARY _
09′ s:0′:3$1r¢{3; –::m.A1~i”
nmmmpmm MaI;Tm*m3§&?EQ’an~mmmG
E&HGfiI.GKE– 56{3Q=L}.}.,_’=. ‘

THE H:E:£Evv.’ .. ig.
E;%i€G.4xL€§RE”E?EYVEI,f§F%?’fc’;’ ABTHQEITY
»$*rLiu . %

3’z”I’£fB’€1i0 SZfQI*!.iE”R”

I». 1”:

3:33 séficm Qéceuxsmmr <3FF}$ER

. <5-EfiR'{'n%§..»QRE $'€}"1"H$fiE°'Z"':"
'- K3-fifififi FEKRK ms?

RE$?5FIBER’I”‘S§

ALfay’-735. G. mmg AQA mg R: as Rfig
33%;: A g %.._¥§J€9.:;*§,T.A§v. mg R3 & 4:

WEE? AF9E.éL-S Afl FEEB ‘£35 4 GE? THE

HIGEE 901712′: ac’: PR§sYH<IG' $0 $21" A3195
A T.1*:*zatE~$*RnER FAS$EI} Bf 133 my PE"I'I'I"I=Qfi n0s,é:33–~
_s 1_:&; 2G£}'§[L&-39.1%; zzmsrms as; mfzcee,

?REL HEARQIQ 33% EAR',

CGHWG 92% FOR
§a_.I{g?ATIL «L;

TEESE WRIT fi:§’?EAw,

mnrvmm ms FoLmwm$:~

54

I,

JUDG§_jE_HT
fimugh tltsase apfils aw iistad for

hcarirzg, the maze am taken up far fins} disp¢;séI

mquast flfthfi Iearfi conrmi far the ‘ ” Z b

2* Timeae writ appwk

order dam 5.102009 % w§yVx¢a.a1;3..
m 15/2099 02:. the

3. ‘Kim four app¢?E.*it_1fm ‘Vfissaflm’ the
m % :55 23.92.2594
we aiming with the writ
‘ to the appailam hays:

far foxwficin sf a laycmt

Iayaut by the Bfialsra D-e.vc:£opm¢nt

as it mlafim m €112 ss}@*:.:.1e pmmrty

figf ‘*3 mnemedg Wfm arm saici matter

far aozmiématian befire. the ieamfi 3mg’ h

.___ ” J1§..dge: an 510.20%, 11% Court, after mm both that:

arid afim’ wzmkierizzgtiw materiai an zwrdy hag

dfimiasefi the writ petifimzs at the ataga af pr&l
hwfnzg Efisaéif an the geufi af dielay mxé. ktzczkm,

1/
€45″? M4

“_.__r/_/, V ..m«.- «M

5/

howwar with an abswmfion that in tkm light o f.’..___t,1’m

airman mafia by the Qivlvsion mm}: in

W.A,Ne.2é24[ 26135 aml mmmctmi

ammms are mmea fie: }s*a’:¥::}1 -3 L

chm-mam, it is for the said k .

zaazfi autlmrifim mih’ ‘ ‘ ‘V

aafiafimrl with the Sngk’
Judge, ayflanta g~e’_. thme writ

eszsunaei a

fez’ aprpcéilgaizfi a for tk

rwfirémm’; ” ‘ ~

perusal ef the :’m§ugzwz:l arcier

yam. ” Sing’ le Judge, we den: mt ffi may

¢rr$r”:2f material irregularity in the ardcr pawed
L % %k%[u;ékkk&1a mm Single guage aégmmsng the pefitiorm
by tbs ajppeilanm en the gszumi of dciay am

j1am}m, :2 $5 must in dispute ma 5;: is mmmm my

lafifiswnwtwflgmfiouftamdthisfieurgincatanaof
ju thatiffimreiséeiaykzfilirgthewzitpefiian
I

qufitaiariim thy: w $ of the final mtificétixtfn

issued by firm mmtmt autkmrityg smash
bc acansitiermi, Thc said remaaing >
the mag. petiiisna :3 just and

aemrdanm with the well-V3cj;tlaad”‘ L.

fimflre, W8 an not mmmmag immaa
and acaracrrdizw, the
62 I~Im:e’e.”sr»e:z’.,~_ii: is it is very

much sapeg mzbnzét their

$1; judflnts gaasfi by
the maimm, if thq are sea
advimjtd. qr ‘ mm¢% érfaerea amrarém’ gly.
…. .. Sd/E
§UD{§E

fm
E §§I§1*{EE:

A’ ‘ I{$