Karnataka High Court
WA/6353/2011 of ADRISHAGOUDA R PATIL, Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, on 16 December 2011
COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE I6” DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KLMANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KGO\’INDARAJUU W&Q6353-6355J2OI BETWEEN: ADRISFIAGOUDA R PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KADROLLI. TQ:
IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKACIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWADDATED THIS THE I6” DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KLMANJUNATHANDTHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KGO\’INDARAJUUW&Q6353-6355J2OI
BETWEEN:
ADRISFIAGOUDA R PATIL,AGE: 48 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: KADROLLI. TQ: BAILHONGAL.DIST: BELGAUM.AGE: 48 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: KADROLLI. TQ: BAILHONGAL.DIST: BELGAUM.
2.SRIKANT V HIREMATH,AGE: 57 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: ITAGI, TQ: KHANAPUR,DIST: BELGAUM.AGE: 57 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: ITAGI, TQ: KHANAPUR,DIST: BELGAUM.
3.NAGENDRAPPA C GANACHARI.AGE: 71 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: M K HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,DIST: BELGAUM.AGE: 71 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: M K HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,DIST: BELGAUM.
APPELLANTS
(B Sri K ANANDKU MAR, ADV)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,REFFDBY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMEM OF CO OPERA1I U,M S BUll D1G BENGALURU.REFFDBY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMEM OF CO OPERA1I U,M S BUll D1G BENGALURU.
STATE: KARNATAKA
2.THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENTAND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR,KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE.AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR,KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
3.THE ENQUIRY OFFICER,SHRI. VEERA3HADRA SWAMY,MANAGING DIRECTOR, NANDHI SAHAKARISAKKARE KARKHANE CO., LTD.,KRISHNA NAGAR, BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR,SHRI. VEERA3HADRA SWAMY,MANAGING DIRECTOR, NANDHI SAHAKARISAKKARE KARKHANE CO., LTD.,KRISHNA NAGAR, BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR,
4.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,MSSKN, M.K. HUBLI, TQ: I3AILHONGAL,DIST: BELGAUM, STATE:KARNATAKAMSSKN, M.K. HUBLI, TQ: I3AILHONGAL,DIST: BELGAUM, STATE:KARNATAKA
RESPONDENT(S)
(BY SRLMAHESH WODEYAR AGA)
Page 1 of 2
THISWRITAPPEALFILEDU/S4OFTHEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SETASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED13 09 2011 PASSED BYTHELEARNEDSINuLEJUIXIEINWRIPPETITION.NO.65190192/2O1 IAND CONSEQUENTLY BEPLEASE TO ALLOW THE APPELLANTS WRIT PETITION
rHISAPPEALCOMINGONFORPRELIMINARYHEARING THIS DAY, K 14 MANJUNATH, I, DELIVURED TIHFOLLOWING
JUDGMENT
dated 13/9/2011 is called in question in this appeal.learned Single Judge in writ petition No.65190-192/2011The legality and correctness of the order passed by the respondent-Sugar Factory.appellantsthereNo.67173-176/2010areNo.68969-74/2010.granting liberty to them to give their explanations within 3thedismissing the appeal on 3/6/2011.thethemanaging committee administering the factory. The order ofandlearned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions weretaken up in appeal in WA No.607988/2011.the appellant herein filed a writ petition.enquiry was questioned by some other Directors in WCommissioneraforesaid said writ petitions were rejected on 3/3/2011Order passed by theDirectorsCaneLearned SingleTheDevelopment and Director of Sugar appointed an EnquiryweeksDevelopment and Director of Sugar.ofThe Commissioner for Caneof this Court confirmed the order passed by the learnedThebeforeSingle Judgefrom2.Division benchOfficer to enquire into certain acts of misconduct by theforAgainWP4Ui Judge while hearing the matter learnt that the presentappellants were also members of the Management committeeofShriMalaprabhaCo-operativeSugarFactoryatM . K.Hubli, for the year 2005 to 2010.However, thoughcontended that they have been newly elected for the firsttime in the year 2010.
3. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judgehaving come to the conclusion that the appellant herein havemisrepresented the fact, has dismissed the petition with acost of Rs. 10,000/-.This order is called in question in thisappeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, weare not in a position to take different view than the one takenby the learned Single Judge because parties are not entitledtoseek therelief under Articles 226 and227of theConstitution of India, when they are not approaching theCourt with clean hands, that too when they misrepresentedthe facts.
Pr-
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…