- _'?ri:iWL_ifpa:_1,VA %%%%% « A ...APPEI.,I,AN'i'
* Senior Advocatc)
. VV '-»I(umar'i vfifiiakshmi
V132 'wars,
_ ' Dfa_E3hwar K.M.,
' Raasident of D.No.C-53,
%%5'*'* Radiai Road,
'4 " ' V. I.T.I.T0wnship, .. ..
1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE, % 3
DATED THIS THE 203'" mo.r0F & '
"me: HONBLE MR. Jus'1%:jCa:; D]§}:?Pg§ii.
'rms: HON'BLE_; MR. AJ¥_.'iS_'if.lC£iAN;'AN1)Vw.'B--'fRAREDDY
vvfmf 81.«$:";,-?f.§'()V8$V'("'1V'2V'.V'I}?~I-IEES')
The oximc;
1"'Phase,"},P.1§Iagar,' A
Bangalore 4~S_V60.078__ * %
Rep;§:sea;ed by-i1;s"' '
Doorvauinagar,
Bangalore 550 016. RESP0NDE}~§5fVVV': "
##5##!!!
This Wm appeal is filed uIfdi§r'---St:ci'_<i':::':':'_VV"" pi' firm
Karnataka High Court Act praying to sat asidgithe» finder ; .
in W.P.No.l6093/2006 dated 33.2003.
This appeal coming on__ for day,
DEEPAK VERMA J., dezlijvered _'th§_f¢i!gxa{ing:--
Shri P.S'.R§;i«:»;.gus;;4};«;1; Advocate, for the
. . ' . \_ ~ . . :
2. on adxg:iggi¢gi:&%%%k%%%%
"fits pct Nfilc, this appcai is barred by 43 days.
:sz)v»'Ané)ii<,;é'--has been issued to the respondent. However,
wi£hAaa%’int’c’n l_§:m’T;i£> vxaminet the merits of the matter, we have
‘ ‘heard Senior Counsel for the appcilani on
I %i dmfs$ipn. Pcsmscd this rccord.
‘W
–: 4 :-
6. After having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the
sppellani and after perusal of {he record, we are x
considered opinion that {here is no merit and subskfiliilee i_l;is__ _
appeal.
7. Admittedly, the sign: before
the learned Single .ludge.._ noiiee. No
reasons has for remaining
absent ihe matter was called
for of the Appellant, there was no
reply io ‘the a§fei*i:1_efxls»* in the wrii petition” Even
when”thev___s_lu+deni wanted to have her marks-sheets
:’e{‘u–ggad,:_s;3 ‘toenable her £0 produce before another College,
lwlxy the same would have been withheld.
.. :Leamed Counsel for Appellani contended lhsi, by
admission by the Respondent in another College, seal
“l1es fallen vacant and would continue like this, till the end of {he
ll eourse and it will go waste. But, all this should have been
We
argued befurt: the: icamcd Singic Judgc. I: is 1.00 iai_;:;’i’1f1 A4 %
to advance this argurmzni.
9. In this inlra-Court appeal, smagw of iti£’:;fi%’;renc»:”is ”
iimilcd- We therefore find no
Huwcver, it is clarified learned
Single Judge may nut be
10. on merits, no
supamtcj iii£§”Vap§;cI}ant liar condom-alien of
delay Thai aim stands rcjccicd
alung’g~.’i.1l1A tbs;
Sd/5
Iudcfe’
Sd/*
Judge
RV