Karnataka High Court
Nagesh @ Nagnath Mandi vs The Commissioner Sugar Ors on 12 March, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2012
EFFORE
THE HON BLE MR,JUSTIC E 8.N,SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.84266 OF 2011 [Cs)
BETWEEN
AGF SR 'N GNATFI MANE)
o VPF RBHADRAY %MAND
\GEF) MTOF I 4? FAR
I FTANM F II
Q THAI I
DIST. BIDAR PETITIONER
F ,F F
ND
S
C
F
F
N H
JEEP XSSIS1AN1 RICE fR\R(1
CO O1FRAIBBSOCTE PIT S&
Al 1311R\fOR 1(1
)ET4 I F'\f
BIDAR RI' SPONDFNTS
(flY I IMMTIKM H ASAHI KM
TIC t
'PFORK 1
CR1 AN1OII11f \J)AR
\D' 101 R2
R BRX I D)
4
I ri I ii 2
n
4 Ti i i ' 'a
nIb rdci cf I p n at I )O
nrc ic 13 and Is ci e C
en I rr t f
t
R It
3
c oft r mitt t N i inja Sahl i tkkaic. I I'hant.
mit 1k isi iU. lit tilt lad )8
I p 1
mc pp)it licopt OIic.cmo I ii
K ukhant mth tilt Ct Ii )Ifl thc sanic d itt
2 Incmdcrt31l thc ilorc aid r icr dots not nf'm t
Ii dIE t mid sr i Icttm
II 1 1 C '1 1
nht 1'I I.
j
c ii ic
t
4
3 \dnuti 'dl' tlic pctitin u i tad to hnc otktd
•;iiI WI 111)11 'ii l\ i'i' 'tilt haiti: ' 12 f)t)
'lh i't
1 I)' . T
'N '1L' 'lit
tt
Crt fri ','s 111)1) . (1 4 In t j% flutt Lii i
irno t In Ic 't u lb I t t dirt %o ' t thc
looking Into am 011111%. liht'ralh dirtvl% his appointment tin
iiurnanitarian giotinds Against hic ii t farct of thc p al
tenis to havc tiled belIav the KarzlatLtka .ppdllasc Tribun ii
iii \ppeal \o.2947Ohit. Ii 1% lull rut %tt It 1.ltcIt ti it4It ! WiiI
ttltion 1 Mc d b hc t titlonc i 'r iS I No 93481 00
vluiu1t k ui,n'ncInior'all w ttltdr;i'vii alit! u
4 Itrr ithih.nraI 4.1
'ic rd iwnhior . c cond •
nd ni. ho L1% iii 1 ii
pa1c 'slot LI IC hi ar
'1 r
t4 t iii a 1' W Ii Li 1 1
ldlti'bLt)' !.. tf 'ii •;
I,' ltr"1' r :.r(l .11 i.Ijj.% 1L. lULii•!.._
' a t K i
a ''' • .. -- t .•
' • '.!. 4
t .
- .' 1'' I !
t
1
1 ' I ) • 1 ' . a
•I • !' I
-5-
5. The claim of the petitioner that he was appointed, as
Cane Development Officer is not supported by appointment
order. The letter dated 08.12.1998 does not state on what
terms and conditions the petitioner is appointed as Cane
Development Officer of second respondent - company.
Admittedly the petitioner has worked only for six months arid thereafter the proceedings before respondent No.3 was initiated in the year 2008, nearly after lapse of ten years. The respondent No.3 has admittedly passed an order on humanitarian ground, which is not permissible In law. Subsequently the writ petition ffled by the petitioner Is withdrawn unconditionally.
6. When the writ petition filed by petitioner herein is withdrawn, to accommodate hUn. respondent No.2. who had initiated appeal against the order of respondent No.3, allow that to go in default. probably with an intention to accommodate the petitioner. Considering the entire aspects of the matter, It is seen that the entire proceedings 6 aaid n t a ,t tknieg I renti i t a hin,.. • • illtisn t t 'iA'Jt'J"t (ii pt'1i1ii 'ncr and lr%pQIvI( iii No 2. t LUll 1 jIb_f 1' h 11 ititl ir' 21(" 'at!! (,ttIt r iibl iii. " It,le wfl ist PP' I be 1 t. tfltb af)pI 1 )i this ( oui t I a illegal at I Ibis ( ourt ou1d not hkc to be guidcd ti thi' to t'%% UJ.1lt iih'& orh', i'lrrciInLj %r'tI)ii(l rr'piutii'ia 10 r'iiilari--.t liii .illc tt ci aq';" tIllIfltilt iii !)4L111011tr P1l'II.hItI ) ip ii t ntiit cidcr tLcu . 12 9 iihiI lit JI if I 7 I L) I I I I cki t iu h ii JUt' Vit'1 ul :Iie flj lilt r 'Iii'- ( olin sntl 11 fl t C I Itt g ( JIt ill % )t Itti I" ' , S 1 7 • 'I • lit •' • I •li' Ii • • '..
•_
• _
,.
I. 114 ' • .: ' • -- It • iij • It :
II Iii
Ott
I ilIc 1.11' i''it . I lIij'
( •tt i;
I
1 iqt' '
•:'
sir tilt'. ' ;r) .4?'' .
I..''
\ pl
1
irijlq f( r V d t tSOfl t1;
pJi a 1 di' n
d
C
U