-1...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGNDRE'
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF' SEPTEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HONELE MRJUSTICE S..ARDL;L .
WRIT PE"I'ITION No.22673 Ci}? 2&1 S' (APAM_'C'3:J. '
BETWEEN :
SR1 VEERA TRADERS.
REP. BY {TS PARTNER.
M.N.BRAHMADEVAIAH, . ,
S/O M.C.NAGAKUMARIAH .
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS A
APMC YARD. BA_TA:w*ADI, ;' '
TUMKUR. ' 'V PETITIONER
{BY SR?
AND:
1. STATE 'OF " _
REPRESENTED SY1TS.__SECRETARY.
DEPARTMENT' OF .ct:»c:I-->ERAT*1oN.
M.IJL'I'I STQREED BUILDING.
.. «.?.BAN"GALORE_: 560 001.
Q. 4 . DIRECTOR or MARKETING.
~ T 'TENS;-.16T..v2Np'RAJBHAvAN ROAD.
BA.'\IGA_L-{IRES 560 001.
R 3. SECRETARY.
AGRICULTURA1. PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE,
V A s 4_ TUMKUR. RESPONDENTS
“(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SR1 BRUDRAGOWIDA, ADV. FOR R3)
TI-IIS WRIT PETFHON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
V’ 227 OF THE CONSTI’IUTION OF’ INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASI-I THE
FORFEITURE3 ORDERS DTED 3.12.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE–A
…2…
ISSUED BY THE R3 SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER
CONCERNED. 7
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON ma pRI:;;1i.4:1;S:i’§j}2i}*cvi.
HEARiNG ‘THIS DAY. THE COURT PASSED THE FoI.Low1’No_:V— _
Learned HCGP is directed
Respondent No.1 6%: 2. Sri B.Rudragowda; learriedd’ counsei: is
directed to take notice fo1f__Respond.e:nt.No_,3. .
2. The petitioner wa’s”a!:Iotted_’,ashitetdhearing No.40~E,
C1ass~B at Iease cum sale
agreement”*eXectited1f:5in ‘–.fa\rour,….t’he petitioner ought to
have to put up on the said site within a period
of one yearn _ SinceA._ petitioner failed to put up
constrfnction as a’boVe_,___respondent No.3 has issued a notice
‘”:_’dated_V as per Annexure–A forfeiting the site in
iietitioner has challenged the validity of the
. said ciated 3.12.2008 as per Anriexure–A in this writ
H ‘A d {V)leitif3l(_)’1’1. it
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
‘Ex
…4…
to take appropriate action against the petitioner in~.___
accordance with iaw. No costs.
Learned advocates are peImi+.tecE._ to
vakalath/memo of appearance as the case to
period of six weeks from today.
KLY/