The Divisional Controller … vs Mahadevaiah M on 3 August, 2009

 '~  .    _   ..... .. v

 '   
Cé;1:%11ait<23f;v»- ._  "

   KSRTC§__Staff& Weathers Uni{m.:,
., fviyspre Rural Divisicm,
 T " -.Po.sf;A0$z:e Rxoad, Bannimanmp,
'  Mysare-570915. ..RE$PON})ENT

% w'('By Sri.V.S.Naik & Smt.ManjuIa.N.KuI3carni, Am.)

IN THE HIGH C()UR'I' 011' KARNA'l'AI(A AT
BANGALORE  

DATED THIS THE 93*" DAY OF A{}GE$'}*."2{}i}_§ .' % 

THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE 

WRIT PETITION %:€o,9316QF 20¢;-5; % [1
mcrwmnm; A % % %
The Divisional Contro}vlér:”.A 1, ;

KamaIakaS1ateRoad    '

Transport      

Mysore: {)ijvi'si'c~;;,'M3fs0rgf.___ '    .

New reprcwtgfiziékzi its ”

Chief Law OfI’Eé.:g:1:,V . _

Shantitzagalf, Bang;f1IoIc«2.?;._»»”‘ _ ..PETITIONER

(By Smt. §}1’h=§£¥t1:a

Nagpzaadb %<)2;;: B.Ne.931,
C/0 '?rei:-;'éde'nt,

AW"

«I3. Hence, the impugned order passed doas not cal} fiat’

interference. Accerdingly, petition £5; dismissed.

Blip.