SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Kar) 559

R.GURURAJAN
G. RAJASHEKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
G.S.VISHVESHVARA, H.R.Vasudha, L.M.Chidanandayya, Tajuddin

R. GURURAJAN, J.

( 1 ) MATTER is listed for orders. Two impleading applications are filed in addition to the one for vacating the stay. All the applications are taken up together for consideration. Petition is also taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel on either side argued both on the I. As. as well as on the main matter to save time. ORDER ON I. A. NO. 1 FOR IMPLEADING

( 3 ) ONE M/s. Mineral Enterprises Private Limited seeks to come on record in the given set of circumstances. According to the affidavit, the impugned lands measuring 515. 98 acres are notified in terms of Notification dated 15-6-1999. The Government without following the procedure prescribed in law decided to approve the grant of mining lease in favour of one of the aspirants, and, that was challenged by the petitioner in WP No. 31728 of 2001. A writ appeal was filed, and, in the writ appeal the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed with slight modification. In these circumstances, the impleading applicant says that it has some interest in the matter, and, therefore wants to come on record.

( 4 ) SAME was opposed by filing objections. In the objections, it i





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top