High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Siddakala Mahila Mandal vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddakala Mahila Mandal vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

cn'~2cu1'r BENCH AT DHARWAI) 
DATED THIS THE 2012 DAY OF :~AARcH.«i;2:&3o9.:   

£3Ei3'ORE_,  ._

THE HONELE MR.JUsT1(S}3: A¢;iT..j.GL1.mAL   '

WRIT PETITION N016-1__821/f20£3§{GM--:Pf§S}«:..._L  .
BIETWEEN:  1% "  I V

SR1 SIDDAKALA MAHiw_..'h'§ANE.iALV. A  --«  
BANJAR NAGAR HINDALGA;-      
BELGAUM BRANCH, BATAKURIG "I'AN1:--vA ' V 
TALUK RAMDURG, V9131: B1::L:3ALrM"-.. '

REP. BY ITS SECRE'_E'AR'£_ 3;    j
Sm'. NILA MA'Is:0L::AIf_e HINBINAMANI V 

W/O MAN0;~1A:sz_ E§.~.HA!1\¥E)iNALA;§.NI
AGE 36 YEARS, BATAf<£¥}_R'K1 'TANDA
TALUK RAMDURG, DIS'_I'} BELGAUM.
_. ., '  -A  '-  PETITIONER
{Bf¥.;M/s GOULAY ASSQCiA'E'ES, Avs.)

» A3930':   -- A'

 ~_1f'..TI--AIE§'§1'ATi;3:.V"OVi.? KARNATAKA,

A V R319. _B;Y~fl"ASCHIEF SECRETARY
"VI0..I:_3HA.rAzA soumm, BANGALORE.

 2. TIiE..:§EPUTY COMMISSIONER,

I fiELGAUM lI)ES'I'R§C'I', BELGAUM.

   TAHSILEAR,

TALUK RAMDURG,
DIST BELGAUM.
...RESP{) NDENTS

(BY SR1. R.K. HA'm, HCGP.)



THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING 'I'O DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO SUPPLY THE RATION TO THE PETITONER IN

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHICH IS REMANDED.”*BYfl THE
COMMISSIONER BY HIS ORDER DATED 1I5.,I._cI1/’O-3» AT
ANNEXURE A AT THE EARLIES’I’ DATE AND ETC. . ‘I jj ._ 1.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELI_!»ii?IAiRYv I>II:A.I2II~I:C:,* V.
THIS DAY, THE comm’ MADE THE i+iOLLO.wIIsio: j

oRDER7″i

The petitioner ._:’Is the

provisions of the iffiommodifies Act,

1992LI ‘_ fis distributing essential
commotiities taluk, district Beigaum. It

appipaiifi, thé”I1iogf:no6: in favour of the petitioner was

I VIfexIokST_dA«.b3sA.Vit;hS Tahsildar which was the Subject matter

o;f’.ttieVV.\V7€t;’I?i§ Pétition No.10550/2005. This Court ailowed

tho” hvfietitzion. It appears that By cum’ inal

» were initiated against the pefitioner. The

Ajyeititioner questioned the order of the Deputy

Commissioner revoking his license in another Writ

Petition No.17581/2005. The said Writ Petition was

: 3 :

allowed and remanded to the Deputy Commissioner-
Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in accordance
with law. It appears, pursuant to Aimexurre
Deputy Commissioner has revoked the
has renewed his licence. _ . V _ AV

2. The grievance
notwithstanding *

releasing the food aijpficefion is given

to the 31’_d __rel_’ease of the food grains. His
grievazice’ is ‘t;’1e.t’v.A’it:.4’I1.r~:;”s’not been done. Hence, this

V

_ R.K. Hatti, learned Government Pleader

the said application for release of food

‘ivotfld be considered exmditiousiy. Hence, the

“IT foiiowing order is passed.

4. The 3rd respondent shall consider the

..w”‘

J

application of the petitioner for release of food grains fl

having rgani to Annexure “A” witmn an outer jv— : _ :

four weeks from the date of receipt of t_h.i5,..”l*d9;f’;’ ” – ::’* . ‘

Petition stands disposed of

Sri. R.K. Ham, if>i2.a.<§d_¢:,? is
permitted to file memo of weeks.