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

1998 Supreme(Kar) 732

B.PADMARAJ
MARAMMA – Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR, SIRGUPPA – Respondent


( 1 ) NONE appears for the petitioner. When the matter has reached for hearing, there is absolutely no representation on the side of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 is present and he has been heard in the matter. Learned Counsel for the other respondents is absent. There is absolutely no representation on their side also. Learned Government Pleader has contended that in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Gururaj alias Gurunath Govindrao mutalik Desai v State of Karnataka and Others, the impugned order made by the Deputy commissioner at Annexure-D may not be maintainable and since the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the matter on merits, it has to be remanded back to the third respondent/deputy commissioner for consideration of the revision on merits.

( 2 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the third respondent/deputy Commissioner was justified in dismissing the revision filed before her on the ground that a revision does not lie on an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order as Annexure-D. In Gururaj's case, supra, the Full Bench of this Court has



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