High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S R Rama Reddy vs Sri Sakkara Naika on 7 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S R Rama Reddy vs Sri Sakkara Naika on 7 August, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALO§§33'»T

DATED THIS THE 7% DAY 09' AUGIEST, 20g9%% " 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE £2;-me: M:i&:a*b:.:2';3.f§ 1§*:*Vi. % _%' ' 

wR1*3:*PE'1'm0N N0. 12<%3.:!2€)0$;;_sc-s:1*4«'

Sri. S RRAMA REIDBY _  «
8/0. RAMACHANQRAPPA,  %  '
AGED ABOUT 59 YB3£a.RSl
BURUJINAKOi?".PA    
HEREYURTALEJK   
CHWRADUEVGA. }i}§€~}5¥TI?I(YF; V ~ . .., ,7§'E'FITIO£'é'ER

(By Sri. 35 Jé;G».§:&:':'§5;§é¥£2§.?~I:,:";fi{)V.}

" "    

A j%v«s/G%VG<317§ALAT%%NAIKA

:2 ' -  ;1*§5£A{_l*:f{Ii:'§;£§5PA
:3/cz._ ,§} {) _L':QA 'I{'H£MMAPPA

 X §a*:*3:'1~ARE R/AT BURUJINAROPPA
» ' 'EERYUR TALUK
   -CEEYFRADURGA 131373103'.

V    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIQNER

CHYFRAEURGA SUB DIVISEQN
CHi'I'RA§URGA - 577 50}. big



I1»?

4 DEPUTY COMMISSION ER
CHITRADURGA DIS'I'RIC'T

CHFFRADURGA - 5'77 501,  RESPONDE§€5'S"V'.   ~

(By Smt. M C NAGASHREE, HCGP, _FC)R4R3"&'4§: .';     

mrs WRET PETYFEGN IS' FILED UNDER 'ARTICLES
226 Aim 22'? 8}?' THE CONS'Z'I'1*Uf1'I()N <3'? INQIAWITH
A PRAYR TO QUASH THE; IN!-?UGI'JED ORDER5' D3'.
2.7.2008 PASSED BY TI--I_E}-R4 «trim: --£xNX~rC, DIRECT TO
ma R4 30 HOLD FRESH AENQLLIERAY 1:1? .§?€)NSIDERING
ALL THE GROUNDS UR'GE'If)_ BY TEEE' P~Ef'FI'I'IONER IN
HIS APPEAL NO. S€R?L(:A)676/§;:¥}G3'5Q4 mt: ETC.

THIS 'i§fI??i'I_'_' '1.._P§£+".'.'I"}.".1_*_IQ'Iz--\I_  --.[<:<3_MIN' 1133 DAY, THE
comm pAs.sED%%':*H?:§_ .FQ.LL§)WI§§«.?G_;V

  

The <;°'()i?1te£3»t'iV0V:1  1:116 petitioner that an

"5-;}por.';§i:1i§:§%. of heafi:'1--g--was not extended in the appeal

fi£cft.';-byefora.filiéiji-rputy Commissianer under Section 3~A

  cf  $6 311$ ST' {Preve£1i:ic2n cf 'I'ra:'asf€:' af'

  Egzfififls} Act deserves to be agcapted in {he ijghi:

 «.  me 

Authority, that is, the Deputy C;)j:i3.-;1:;i5si0r1.<§:1'«-- dismiss
the appeal on merits, or ixfiiether  open and
available was either' tg adjiiiitii  to dismiss

for default'?   M

2, The xé3;;'a~.i%ti 'j11V:d;:,ni1«?é;i:1'£,..u~is application in all farce to

'the faigfs  this  Appellate Autlmority having

  of the appellant and his leaxneci

' V'   {3€)'L11;Z'lS;(f§Qai flTi;cf;'3..V_?f:§:%3J€ of heaxing of the appeal proceeded

-4   decidtzvy 'the appeal on its merits based on me

 '--ai:ér:::;_ei*;;1:s setout in the appea} memorandum. 'Tha order

 "-¥',é_»v<:Q?r2¥n"3;r"3: to law and ig unsustairzabieg

r

K}



«ii

3. Writ petition is aliewed. The order ..

02.07.2008 M Annexure (2 of respondent  ~

quashed anti the proceedings is

consiezieration. Let a copy of this order :s5e”fi1a€i::V”avai}a}§£@_ ” .

to the learned Governm-311$