High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner City Municipal … vs Smt Saraswathi W/O Manjunath on 9 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner City Municipal … vs Smt Saraswathi W/O Manjunath on 9 January, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar


‘-” -“r-“~ .*’-W.-9°–.-7..-«-V-F-.~ -*”.–“W-I-,*r-‘IIa7II~r’I- =I-II-wI-a-Ia-uI\tI\!- ‘Ill’

mum -mun t..ui.nn- ur’mmtNA’mIm RIG!-I COURT ‘OF KARNATAKA ‘HIGH COUIE

1

IN THE HIGH center or KARNIATAKA
cmcurr BENCH AT Guyggmsa

Dated this the 937* day of Jan112:§’§§*,

BEE—‘fl’RE;

THE: 2»IoN*nLE MR J2IS’ii’§§3E} _ l3’i7 immafi ”

Requiar Fif$f 2 ‘?§;3g3ea§A “M 19;; iv-,¢{‘5.:{r0a;?

Between:

Ti-IE C0§.€MISSI£:I\¥E’r? 1,’; ..

czm’ MLINECIPAL-COE§NCEL

Bimiaé. V

8ID;«.:€2_:”;’;s’:’i2::C’1′: ‘ APPELLANT’

V 5:, 1\f,ad;3g0’L1da, Adv.,)

t
‘ 1:

–. S§~JE.’f’ ‘SAjR.z%;$§§%;m.?::%1v: .. ‘ ‘
W/ 0 .w;1~;;:UrLJ”S?{.E;HC}’i.,E3 wow

1%»; 0 :1?:§x1<ALWA'D:'
3; ma TALU £2;

I{3I§}.£%R'”‘.i3IS_TR~£CT

V =_+;~”;f;’A;*:’__E :31? mmgfaéég
_ R%’;E?._Bf’f yrs SECR ETARY
‘V . j~a;:::::3ANA SOUQHA

. ‘3r_§=~;G;:L0RE;~9:

” 2% DEPIJTY CQMNEESSEENEEQ
‘ Bzbzmiz; DISTRECET

‘iE:§”§E1’25s.R

‘”E”f–~1E AB§é§N§ST’RATGR
CITY M§;§N§CiPAL CQUNQEL

BIBAR DESTRECY RESP{3NU§}Wi”S

‘-‘H ‘ -VI I vvvlu Ur AHKIVMIHKH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF WNATAKA HIGH’ CCU’

5
the daiay is neither intentionai nor de]ibetrz.it§:.’:§1:r5i:i fh€ref0re

j{1Stifi€S ta {2(‘)I7id€)I’i*-‘$3 the delay.

5. I have heard Sri R V ‘ i’i’:

the appeliant, perused’ _aLp;ji’iCa,ti0;§} suppovrting
affidavit and lockegl ‘ii11cjgm:.§fit’-Aefv’ fithe lawer mart

and the rslevani (ii>%:11133;’c:;r;3; piagiéd» Cass;

6. in 3-._£h€§”‘fH’$t’. i111Stan.¢<f;,V ": iEi'id that the explanation
offered"~iS"-:*£:?;ith<é;f:*"~éi'-Sufiiciefiit explanation nor a serious
a'££_::~:.r1:.pt ééiay in a proper manner. Excapt

for 1:123 rQ:_:i51ié;A 1:tVii&;ei11e11t of papers in any gaverrztnent

unicripality, there: is abssoiutely :10 other

'A mentioxzed. EV(;*§{'}?' govemmant appaal 91'
public bad}; if invoivss Cifiliijé in presentation
€i1f1é j§;:Q iimutine mcvement Qf' files, it is far E115 appeiiazfi is

V x ' steps in acivanae and not to Wait: tifl the East éatew Ba

ihat; as it may, I (it) not find may preps: expiaxzation

justifying the Cofidanatién, af inordinate dalay 2'29 days in

preferrizzg this appeai,

— …. ….n.u-. mun yuulu Ur KARNATAKA H16!-I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAl&:WH!G!4 COUR

8
preferred any fmflzer appea} and r§é_<:_§f_vm11ch
scopé for ir1terferiI:g with $16
decree if} this 81313631, "'~f:%§1"
Corléoizing the delay, " ifié was
liotifzsci anci no objectiéil-"., the ciaim of

defendaniuziiuxzicigikglity ; "

10. I12j;:};:z’2:._15fcs1.1:§.__i:, s;pj§1i%:af<i€?rlff. for czmfianing tha delay

and the ajégsééi'–23ré"€iiSin§ssed.

Sd/ –

JUDGE

.- —. —— ~. .~._ _~:-#7. 2-xv’-v~ “””‘””””‘f.”?’Iia-wuaI’!’I –u.I~’u’,I- wvunl ill” lP\I\l*\’ l”‘lI\7!’1 UKJUKI “Ur NNKNHIKKA “35”” COURT OF

IN THE HIGH center or KARNATAKA
cmcurr BENCH AT GULEARGA

Bafsd this the 93* day of Jan11E:’:§’, 1 ‘

BEFGI«L§§:A

THE HGl.!’BI.»E3 MR J{Is’i:’£CE’;._’_D”ii §§HYE;¥3r}$:I};f!_§v;§;i{Uh§fliR ”

Requiar 23%: ,?i’;;§;)ealA ]*fo_ 1 9:

Between:

THE camimxsszfigwae , AA

cm’ MLINECIFAEA-.30§_§’?€’C§L

B:I:;=A§2._

B:b$§e.4«:;:.s%*R;{<:T; ' APPELLANT'

V 11.. V F%§§';§é§1g0L1da, Adv")

" 'Arm:

.s;a«;%I”::vs~;::<_s;s:i5¢;zx*:fz~i1;–., ' –
wzcz –.§JEAP€;iUNATi§

=.(3C3C1: P~iQLT*SE;E.-I{;3–§,,E?3 iazom
R–;i0;vRAx{;:gLv:AE:.z~'
BEAR 'rsu,U:»:

E3£Ef}AR”‘i3IS_’1_’_’Rv;C’§’

‘«.$’f’Aif’E arr’ KAE’2’JA'”i’A§i§a
R§f:E:ZB’;’ YES SECRETARY
« “~V1:;sa’;;NA SOUDHA
‘:%;£¢i’GgL@RE;~9:

mg DEPIJTY COMI*v’E§S§{§?€E§%3.
\. ” B£D,M€. DISTRECT

“&§§’:)2%R

TEES ASMENESTRATQR
CITY MLENKEEPAL C{}UNC.§L

Blffifif? DlS’?R§C”{‘ REZSP{3N}§£E’~3TS

” ‘-‘H ‘ “VI I V-vvnl Ur AHIKIVMII-“EA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H50” CCU!

5
the delay is neither intentienai nor deLibe:z%a§;§:.§:;::i t1′;geref0re

justifies to condone the delay.

5. I have heard Sri R V bi’adé%,5gfGi1dég. ‘ i’0i’
the appellant, perused» V_ ap}jiic3.ti0§i»’-arid’ suppétfing
affidavit and lookegi fii1r§,gInéfitv–.0f-{he iower mutt

and the relevant déégjifiéxii the case.

6. in §’,:h§:¢:V’»»”fiJ’3t.’. if;_’.§1fanr§.e_”‘IV”f:i”i(i that the explanation
offered –v..if37–r§:7itha~:f-.z§i”‘L.*-svfiiciejixt explanation 1:191′ a serious
atégenjpt ole-my in a proper 1333111161′. Except

for tbs %ro2iii1iTé.A’111Vdv.ra:nent of papers in any govemmant

J I1%L:’llI}i(ZipEi]ii’Z}i, there is absolutely no other
mentianed. Every government appsai 0:’
publie body if involves étiiay in presentation
.u{i1z1é j$e§’ Eautine inavément ef flies, it is for the appeilazai £9

‘ AA ‘ steps in advance and not ta wait: tiil {ha East: date. Ba

{hat as it may, I dc) net find any prepay’ axpiarzafion

jufitifying the ccmdarxaticcm sf inordimata delay 229 days; in

prefarring this appeai.

6%

ArA;A men came

– – .. …. …-..n…-. mun uuulu Ur IUARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H16!-I COURT OF KARN

8

preferred any fauiher appea} and ;%:;:a'”t_v:n11ch
scape for interferizzg with Fhe
decrea in this appeal,
coxlcioiiing the delay, .ti1QfV_1g1fi ‘ W85
I”i()t§fi€2Ci and 1:20 objecti §i1*1.V’,V£_i1eficl” the claim of
dafaudané:~1I21113iC§i;§%;1i:§;L u 2

10. In for candaning the deiay
and t.};71é V

Sc1/ –

JUDGE