IN THE Iiifiil COURT OF KARNATAKA AT W.P.No..l3952 OF 2003
1
N THE I-RGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _
DATED 'nus 'rim am am or novzungafi _
THE HON'BLE MR. Jusrice n.x.ma; "
BETWEER:
TALUK AGRECULTURAL opgmravs ' '
MARKEENG SaC}t2:lET':'.'Li¥*.fllTEi'.') _ V ' --« '- « _
MAGADI TALUK, R R RoAo,-- wsefisna TOW_N, _
RAMANAGARA ENSTRICT REP afar iTS Aurrzqmsa
SKSNATORY, :4 G NARfi.¥A,Nk 1. A 2 - '- "
3:0 3:2: GAMQAHNA, swan ~31'! YEAR-3
._ 1 _ PETWONER
(By Sn' : 3 L smsaav gaovo;:.Ǥ're_.) 4- V
AND: 1 = v :
1 7345 sTA=;E;0FKARNAma<A .
avms QECRETEARW' ._ - -
QEPARTMENT <}FF.O0i;= Auu;:|v:L supmes
VIDHANA = <
aamagons: 2 " '
2 ;'THa.9EPuTa*..¢d§.éM:é:3:oNaR
3 '~':RA1g:AMAGAaA' 'msf.r;z«:cT
Rmanmgana
mmfla
MAr3A::11"ALt.;i<:
'=MAGADf f_
V . 4 MAi'~l;§GiNG {DIRECTOR
FOOD ANi} CML SUPPLEES C%RATl0N
' _ 7 LT{3'.",
' =- . gamaaoae
5.' 'ms txsrmcr MANAGER scum
V' " {BY sax. Hit NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1 rd 5)
KARNATAKA FOOG AND CNIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATEGN
RAMANAGARA
RESPONDENT 3
IN “£37333 H1611 {.3UUK’i’ OF KAi{NA’i’Al(A AT i3AN(iAL£}l{!:Z W.i’.No. 139512 OF 2008
war: PETITION No.13$____5_3__ or g[,% A
EN 33133 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W’P.No.13952 OF 2008
5
J’.
Hid’
THT$ WRIT PETTTSQN TS HLED UNDER ARTECLES 226 AND 22? OF
THE CGNSTITUTTON OF £NDiA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER GT.
25’10’20% PASSED BY RESPONDENT N02 D AS AMNEXTJRE-C.;
QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NURSE OT, 28.102006 ESSSUED BY’ ‘THE._2;N£3
RESFKDNDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-9.; AND TO IJTRECTL. THE
RESPONDENT 3 T0 CONTTNUE THE WHOLESALE DEALEi_~”é$H£F* _
PETTTKDNER 80CiETY.
ms wan’ Permozu comma ow ma Paeuhiarqgéiy. ‘érEA;::mG,_ ” ”
THES DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ” ‘ « Q_
o R 9 ER
Petiticmer in fifis an Agris-;itjifijraT’:§Pr§duce
Marketing society LtcLf« ‘by as aflvufitorized
signatcry. Petitioner the order
dated by second respondent
produc:e’d._aTsT and the show cause notice
uatggs 23″‘ 2:393 issued by the 2nd respondent
Further, petitioner has sought
the respondents to continue me
hdieaiership of the pefitioner — Society.
2 2.” I have heard Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, teamed caunsei
égopearing for petitioner and the learned Government
IN Tfifi Hlfiii €..'()UK’l’ 01°’ i(ARNA’i’AK.A AT BANGALORE W.P.N€&.l3e952 {}F 2008
IN THE R1631} CJCHJRT C’-F KARNATMQ AT BANGALORE W.P.No.i39S2 OF 2008
3
Pieader appearing fa’ respondents 1 to 3, for quiteigiivie
time.
3. During the course ofwt it
counsel for petitioner
petition filed by be as it
withdrawn’ rage”-mg: 2 ttzi make
necery appiicatianm authority
where the seeking interim
prayer ane in the writ petition
maybeleft
4. The by learned counsei
appearing.\%ff§f it stated supra, is pieced on
5}’ the submission made by teamed
. as stated supra, the writ petition
is dismissw as wrthd’ rawn, reserving
pefitioner to redrem its grievance before the
«:..Ta’p;§5eiiate authwity where the appmi is pending
IN ‘i’tii£ mm: C{}1.,i1{‘i’ OF KARNA’l’A.l<A AT HANGALURE W.P.Nu.1Z§9S2 OF 206::
IN T3113; IIIGII COURT OF KARNATAJCA AT §,;mGAi.-ORE W.P.No.l39S2 OF 2008
4
adjudication, by filing an applicaticm seeking intgrim
prayer as provided under me relevant
Kamataka Essential Commodities (PBS) 1′
1992. Al! the contentions ‘ ‘V
left open. Ordered accordin§;;3;4,.
“Ti1dge
EN ‘!’t’§!:} QECIH CUUi{‘£’ Of” KARNA’!’A!(.A. AT BANGAILJKE W.P.NGl3952 OF 3308