High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Vinayaka Mitra Balaga vs State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinayaka Mitra Balaga vs State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma K.Ramanna
in ms area ooumr 0?' mnxmmxa. A1' 

DATED nus mm 12" mm or nr:»cmna1'§§1z':i2f{3€'!'3~T'   ~ . %

pn1s:szm'.%... 

mm Horrnm MR. mantis; B.§m~:}=AR%imgf 3,:

THE Hoxrnm ma.  

wnrr A___z3!-EAL '§e5't%::e.§1A:;z&5 1;}  jam-lam)

nwmnnrg:    jy '

Sri.Vinayz3,ka §JIiti:~1_ Ba1g?;ga%(32¢gd..),'---"   '
Chamarajendra  ¢_   
Haniyambadi   
Opp. to S'§1i.Basa?c.shw?ara. T€!_Ilple,--
Hosaha]1i;._'Mand;ra," '-»._     ' '
Reptd. Byits F'resir1c:at.{'   

1')

Sri.MaI1¢sh, - 

_ Vyfesiidcntf  ..... !{ \\

" «  1" 
 

um-¢m_.

 smegma asabhahit, Adv.)

_  of Karnataka,
; Reptd., by its Secretary,

T 'Transport and Internal

Administration,

Police internal Sczvioes,
Vidhana Soudha,
BANGALORE -- 660 001.

 



.. A!'PELLA1I'l'B.

 



The Director,

Karnataka Fire and Emergency
Services Department,

No.1, Annaswamy Mudaliyar Rd

BANGALORE - 560 043.

The Superintendent of Poiioe,
Mandya Dist,
EIAJHDYA.

The Deputy Commissioner,' L. x 

Mandya Dist,
MARDYA.

 

Smt.Ch1kka' thayamma,    'D
Aged about 85--Years,°  ' '

W/o Late  if  'V A

'9

ma G¢iia3égcI'é Vfl1age,    A  

Ma;idur€"Ta1f&iIA:, "    --
MA1€DYA=..l§)I3*;!f!:vi_lV(1T_'."~  '-

 

szi.:VG.P.R.-amu,"   _ _~
s/ o'=.La1;c' G.
Aged 'about 60_Yc.ars;"'  
R/a  _Vii}a'ge,_'..'e'
Maddur Ta1;1k;..   '

. , ' uSn1t,vB;.(;.S'ara,swatbi,
 _  W/ea 'Lgte "Ge,P.'YaheendIa,
" _ "A_ged' Years,
'R/Va Gejjazagerc Village,

hfuadciur Téluk,
mama DISTRICT.

 

'.~f_" V Sti.G.P.Shivash1-ankar,
 s;b Late G.K.Puttaswama;ia11,
; Aged about 50 Years,
 R/3 Gcjjalagere Viflagc,

Maddur 'Taluk,
EEAHDYA. DISTRIUP.

 

®

 



9. Sri. G. P. Kxishnappa,

Sfo Late G. K. Puttaswamaiah,

Aged about 58 Years,

R/a Gcjjalagcrc Village,   
Maddur Taluk, 
MANDYA DISTRICT.

10. Smt.G.Y.Poorm'ma,

Aged about 30 Years,

W/o Krishna,

R] A Allur I}oddi,

Maddur Taluk,   _   ;
MANDYA DISTRICT.   ' "

 

1 1. S1nt.G.P.Shanad'a, 

S/0 C.Ra;;:iv:s]1;?'V' _ _  

Aged abm      %
Residing at  cums,  .. '

7'13 Sector, VHSR" ':'I;;.3yo'i.2.t,'

     . .
(By S':i-Basava1%%j'I_%KaI?fi5¥»V~"

 Adv. far R-i -and R-2,

4; ' Sz:i.F,V.PaI_:ViLVAdv 
*_*__*__'*_*__*__*__'l'

"   1 is filcd under Section 4 of the Kamataka

 'High   praying to set aside the Order passed in Writ

 .1-[V'%n5&:1:;xi;>::'%.:s;o.i3315/2007 dated 17.05.2003.

    __§'I'hiS Writ Appeal coming on for  Hcaxing this day,

   VERMA J ., delivered the following:

CT



JUDGHERT

Sri.Ravi G.Sabhahit, beamed counsel -'sapfas;-,a: £5;

appellants. Srifiasavaxaj Katveddy,   A:iv¢$c'atnj'.  

appeared for respondent Nos.1 to  

learned counsel appealed for msfinndant $103.5

2. As per omoe nott:,’: “this 36 days.
I.A.I/2008 has been filed delay. For the
reasons assignedgin’ is hereby condoned.

I.A.I/2008 ‘

3. were not parties before
Icarnw sin .g:e_LJudge.”i§{Av):_.;=..§$i¢;’i3315/2007 (GIWRES), preferred

by respondent 1’«uI§:>:”4.V5 1 1 2’acnein.

4.._V » have flied I.A.II/2008 seeking heave af the

against the impugned order passed by

“Jndgc on 17.06.2008 in the Writ Petition preferred

N055 to 11 herein. As appaihants appear in be

pariics to the litigation and espc-c1a]1y’ to the subject

j of the writ petition, thair pxaycr is accepted and they are

3 permission to file the appeal. I.A.IE/ 2008 stands allowed.

75

5. Learned counsel for appellants contended

Order dated 11.09.2007, was sought to ”

respondent £1035 to 11, on the ._no_ of’~.__

hearing was given to them before_’qunehjng the
necessary consequence thereof, ‘H]V:Vfave been
remanded for mconsidernnon 1 and only
after afioxding an parties, needful

could have been Edonefby fine

6. Ho\§’eyer,””*1g§e 3 that the appellants should
by’ filing an appropriate application

for review, no the Jwoukd be in a better position to

V appmeinte as to what circumstances, the Government Order

matter was not remanded to Iespondent No.1 for

dngidang’ in accordance with law, afier giving an

‘ _oppormnit_y to the panics eoncezn.

” with this ziifiiculty, learned counsel for appellants

permission to withdraw this appeal and to file an

T application for review of the impugled onier nod by

3 :the learned Single Judge. Prayer accmpted. If such 3 review is filed

E

within a period of 30 days from today, then the sz-:1m:=._ .*..sVl;:\”.a_:1’lT~.13,ot be

dismissed on the gonad of deiay, but would

merits.

8. This appeal

under as to costs.

AGV.