( 1 ) SMT. T. N, Manjuladevi, learned High court Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for the respondents.

( 2 ) BY consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) THIS is another dismal story of inordinate delay and nondisposal despite a direction from this Court issued in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the constitution. Unfortunately, since no time was specified in the direction issued, respondent-1 was not deterred by the consequences of a blatant defiance of the court's order which would have landed him in contempt proceedings. This is one of those instances which justify the interference of the Court in its unenviable role of a senior partner in public administration. The delay as well as administrative lethargy of respondent-1 call for necessary action by the authorities who are, supposed to supervise the functioning of respondent-1.

( 4 ) ON 7-3-1985, this Court allowed Writ petition No. 22688 of 1981 directing respondent-2 therein (the Taluk Executive magistrate, Magadi Taluk, Magadi) to hold fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affor