mmnmaaooumormmaruunrsmmmm
mm!) 111:: 111: 21* mm or JULY u H
was nozrnm ma. mm-Ax Vanna; j
TI-IE 1-Iorrnm nut.
wnrr wrmon yo. e_:;e$
nwrwmx: %
THE KARNATAKA STATE K
VILLAGE VB.()1_!'LR::i?= «
REPRESE.NTE_D"BY' $ f _
CHIEF EI?(ECUT*iV}§'. O':ITFi£3ER
JASMA BHAVARE RON? ~
nmaawm -- 053, " H:-rmomn.
(A33: Sxti. Adv.)
AA %%%%%
'£11:-3'1§ioc)KAi;§'13iK19; KHADI MATTU
GRAMQDYOGHASANGHA (REGn..)
Hosa HONNAFEPA VILLAGE
A A 8!-IIl£"t'1IGA;._"l'E'.'.;'I!K - 577 $1.
% zepzpnasmmn BY rrs sacmrnm
* k Lsm. xnreumxan SHETTY. msmmmrr
Sri.U.Pa:1duranaga Kayak, Adv.)
a._--:._--a_*_,*_,va -1%
This Writ Petition is filed under Artick-:3 226 e.f':2§'zeJ:e: the
Constitution of India, praying to quash
06.02.2008 passw by the Karnataka State
Redressal Commission, Bangalore,
Anncxure ea 'A', which cosnfirmed {he Zdx-§ic;'l_ "
passed by the District Consumer__.Disi1utes F_§imm_:ext
Shimoga in complaint No.46] 1»;-1 '31.
This Writ Petition 01; f£oeV_ojArae:s this 'day, ecmtn
CHIEF JUSTICE, made the foilewiiigz: " "
3 for the parties. With consent
arguments'heei1d.
_. .2. e by the order dated 06.02.2003 passed
State Consumer Disputes Redressai
in the appeal preferred by it against the
V passed by the Distriact Consumer Disputes
""v.4 §3e§d:e3ealvV'P'.on11n, Shjmoga. Learned counsel for the petitioner
that before the District consemerromm, opposite party
" ': :No.'i§ in the complaint, has submiteed its detailed reply and hm
"opposed the prayer mwe by the complainant -~ respondent henfin.
“‘%
It was contended by the teamed counsel for the it
would be seen that respondent Nos. 1 and 2
part1e’ s and Whatever subm1ss1o’ ‘ n were by
No.2 could be taken as having
as well and it was not necessaIy”f<:).:iV?"e"I_)pt)v.s1ite_ file
separate and independent: of the
con1i3la'mt filed by the tt ' a " %
3. From the mt before the sum
Commission, _No.2 had not filed any
appeal by District Forum.
4. learned counsel for the
aubntittatiw he will new file a review appficatiaon,
patty No.2, the Distrust’ Oficcr, Kamataka V)1lag’ e
wouid also be arrayed as one of the
t _appeH9nts.__’w§tii Aleave and to seek review of the order. if such
e mm” petition is filed, then the State ‘ n
eénsiier the said application in accordance with law and on
: nmm§ts_ E
5. With the aforesaid observations, this writ
of granting such liberty, but with no Q’rti&”a.s ‘
The amount already
petition would stand transfcned”v’VfoT_V’th¢ sew: ‘ n to be
accounted in dhposed ofz§;spea1_ i .
…. 5’
Sd/Q.
Judgg