Karnataka Gazette, Part Part-3, 03 January 2019

click here for IIIF manifest

ಶಕ ವರ್ಷ ೧೯

ಸಂಪುಟ ೧೫

Volume 15

೫೪ 54

ಬೆಂ Be

ಂಗಳೂರು, ಗುರ

engaluru, Thu

ರುವಾರ, ಜನವ

ursday, Janu

ವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯

ary 3, 2019 (P

೯ (ಪುಷ್ಯ ೧೩,

Pushya 13, S

haka Varsha

ಸಂಚಿಕೆ ೧

Issue 1

೯೪೦)

1940)

ಭಾಗ ೩

ಸಕಾ ರ್ಾರದ ಆ ಯಾ ಇಲಾ

ಲಾಖೆಗಳ ವ

ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥರ

ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಥ

ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ಪಾ

ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗ

ಗಳಿಗೆ

ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿ

ಸ

ಸಿದ ಅಧಿಸೂ

ಸೂಚನೆಗಳು

ು

ನೋಂದಣ

ಣಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ ವ

ಮತ್ತು ಸಹಾಯಕ

ಕ ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಸಾ

ಸಾರಿಗೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ

ಗಳ ಕಛೇರಿ, ದೆ

ದೇವನಹಳ್ಳಿ,

ಇವರ ಕಛೇರಿ ನಡಾ

ಬೆಂಗ

ಗಳೂರು ಗ್ರಾಮಾ

ಾಂತರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ಇ

ಡಾವಳಿ.

ಉಪ ಪಸ್ಥಿತರು : ಶ್ರೀ ಎ ಎಸ್. ಮಂಜುನಾಥ

ಥ್

ನೋ ೕಂದಣಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ ರ ಮತ್ತು ಸಹಾಯ ುಕ ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಸಾ

ದೇವ ವನಹಳ್ಳಿ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂ

ೂರು (ಗ್ರಾ) ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ.

ವಿಷ ಷಯ : ಮೋ ೕಟಾರು ವಾಹನ

ಾರಿಗೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ

AC-8482 (HGV

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: MH-⁰⁶-A

ಪತ್ರವ ವನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸು

ುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ.

ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ನಿಷಿ ಷ್ಕ್ರೀಯೆ ಗೊಳಿಸಲು V)ರ ನಿಷ್ಕ್ರೀಯೆ, ನೆ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮತ್ತು ನೋಂದಣಿ ಪ್ರವ ಮಾಣ

ಲು ಕೋರಿರುವ ಅ

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ : 1. ಉ 2.

ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ಹಿ ಹಿ.ಮೋ.ವಾ.ನಿಗಳ ರ್ಜಿಯ ದಿ: 16-

-08-2018.

ರದಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 15

5-09-2018.

ಪರಿಶೀಲನಾ ವರ

ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆ:-

ವಾಹನ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: MH-⁰

GV)ರ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಕರು ವಾಹನದ

ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಸರೆಂಡ ಡರ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ಸ ಸದರಿ ವಾಹನವು ಭಾರಿ ದುರಸ್ತಿಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಮೂಲ ದ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು

್ನ ದಿ: 16-08-2

ಈ

018 ರಂದು ಈ

ಬಂದಿದ್ದು, ರಸ್ತ

ನೋಂದಣಿ ರದ ದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಲು ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಅರ್ಜಿ

ರ್ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಚರಿಸ ಸಲು ಯೋಗ್ಯವಾ

ಾಗಿಲ್ಲದ ಕಾರಣ ನಿಷ್ಕ್ರೀಯೆ ಮತ್ತು

ು್ತ

ಅದರಂತೆ ಈ

ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪ

ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ವರದಿ

ದಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ತಿಳಿಸ

ಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಮೋ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ಮೊ

ೂೕ.ವಾ.ನಿ. ರವರಿ

ರಿಗೆ ಮೆಮೊ ನೀ

ೕಡಿ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು

್ನ

.ವಾ.ನಿ. ರವರು

ದಿ: 15-09-201

18 ರಂದು ಕಛೇರಿ

ರಿಗೆ ವರದಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ

ಸಿ ಈ ವಾಹನವು

ು

ದರ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಭಾಗ

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ರಸ್ತ ಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಚಲಿಸಲು ಯೋಗ್ಯವಾಗಿರು ವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಅ ಸದರಿ ವಾಹನವ ವನ್ನು ಮರುಬಳಕೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಸ ಸೂಕ್ತವಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಗಳು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ

ರ್ ಹಾಳಾಗಿದ್ದು, ವಾ

ವಾಯುಮಾಲಿನ್ಯದ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದಲೂ

ೂ

ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಸ್ರಾ

ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಲು ಶಿ ಶಿಫಾರಸ್ಸು ಮಾಡಿ

ಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ವಾಹನಕ್ಕೆ 30-0 ಾ್ಕ್ರಪ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ನೊ ೂೕಂದಣಿ ಮತ್ತು ನೋಂದಣಿ ಪ್ರವ ಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು

್ನ

09-2018 ರವರೆಗ

ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಈ ಕ ಕೆಳಗಿನಂತೆ ಆದೇಶ ಶ ಹೊರಡಿಸಲಾಗಿ

ಗಿದೆ.

ಗೆ ತೆರಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿ

ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಆದು ುದರಿಂದ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂ ಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು

್ನ

ಆದೇಶ

ಶ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಸಪ್ರಾಸಾ

ಾಅ/ದೇ/RCCNL

82/2018-19, ದಿ

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 28-09-

-2018.

ಮೋಟಾ ಾರು ವಾಹನ ಕಾ ಾಯ್ದೆ 1988ರ ಕ ಕಲಂ 55(1) ರಲಿ

ಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರದತ್ತವಾದ

ು್ತ ಸಹಾಯಕ ಪ್ರಾ

ಾ್ರದೇಶಿಕ ಸಾರಿಗೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ, ದೇವನ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಚ

ಚಲಾಯಿಸಿ, ಶ್ರೀ

ಣಿ ಾಥ್ ನೋಂದಣಿ 2 MH-06-AC-8482

ನಹಳ್ಳಿ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂ

ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ ಮತ್ತು (HGV)ರ ನೋಂ ಂದಣಿಯನ್ನು ಸಕಾ

ರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಬರಬೇಕಾ

ಾದ ತೆರಿಗೆ ಬಾಕಿ ರು (ಗ್ರಾ) ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ಆದ ನಾನು, ವಾ

ಎಸ್. ಮಂಜುನಾ ಾಹನ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: M

ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳ ವಸೂ

ಬರುವಂತೆ, ಅದ ದ್ಯಪರ್ಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಸ

ಸ್ಕ್ರಾಪ್ ಮಾಡಲು ೂಲಾತಿಗೆ ಬಾಧಕ ವಿಲ್ಲದಂತೆ ದಿನಾಂ ಂಕ: 24-09-201

18 ರಿಂದ ಜಾರಿಗೆ

ಗೆ

ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡ

ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇ ನೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಮ ುುಂದೇನಾದರು ಈ

ಈ ವಾಹನದ ಕಂಡುಬಂದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ ಸದರಿ ವಾಹನದ ಮಾಲೀಕರೆ ಪಾವ

ವತಿಸಲು ಬದ್ಧರಾಗಿ ಡುತ್ತಾ, ವಾಹನ ನೆ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮತ್ತು

ು್ತ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಪ್ರ ಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು

್ನ

ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಎ.ಜಿ. ಆಡಿಟ್/ಆಂತರಿಕ ಆಡಿಟ್ ಆಕ್ಷೇ ಪಣೆ/ಡಿ.ಎಸ್.ಎ.ಬ

ಬಾಕಿ/ತೆರಿಗೆ ಬಾಕಿ

ಕಿ

ಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂಬ

ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪ

ಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.

ಷರತ್ತಿನೊಂದಿಗೆ ವ ವಾಹನದ ನೋಂ ದಣಿ ಮತ್ತು ನೊ ೕಂದಣಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ

ಣ

(೧)೨ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ಭಾಗ ೩

PR. 724

ಎಸ್. ಮಂಜುನಾಥ್

SC. 10

ಸಹಾಯಕ ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಸಾರಿಗೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ,

ದೇವನಹಳ್ಳಿ.

ಕಂದಾಯ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಆರ್‌ಡಿ 04 ಎಲ್‌ಜಿವೈ 2018, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 11-09-2018.

ನಮೂನೆ 27

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂದಾಯ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ಕಲಂ68(1) ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂದಾಯ ನಿಯಮಗಳು 1966ರ

ನಿಯಮ 94 ರನ್ವಯ ಘೋಷಣೆ.

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸ್ವತ್ತಾಗಿರುವ ಹಾಗೂ ಈ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಅನುಸೂಚಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಪಡಿಸಿದ (ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ರಸ್ತೆ/ಓಣಿ/ಗಲ್ಲಿ/ಹಾದಿ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ಭಾಗ) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಭಾಗವು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಬಳಕೆಗಾಗಿ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿದೆ.

ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಪ್ರೌಡಶಾಲೆಯ ಕಟ್ಟಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಈಗ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರವು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂದಾಯ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 68ನೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ (1)ನೇ ಉಪಪ್ರಕರಣದಿಂದ ಪ್ರದತ್ತವಾದ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಚಲಾಯಿಸಿ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರವು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಸದರಿ ಭಾಗವು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಉಪಯೋಗಕ್ಕೆ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಹಾಗೂ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು ಕೊನೆಗೊಳ್ಳತಕ್ಕದ್ದೆಂದು ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಘೋಷಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಜೊತೆಗೆ, ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಸದರಿ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಯುಳ್ಳ ಅಥವಾ ಹಕ್ಕುಳ್ಳ ಅಥವಾ ಈ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಅನ್ಯಥಾ ಬಾಧಿತನಾಗುವ /ಪ್ರತಿಕೂಲ ಪರಿಣಾಮಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾಗುವ ಸಂಭವವಿರುವ ಇತರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಅಥವಾ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯು ಈ ಅಧಸೂಚನೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದ ತೊಂಭತ್ತು (90) ದಿನಗಳೊಳಗೆ ಸದರು ಉದ್ದೇಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಅಂತಹ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಯು ಅಥವಾ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಸ್ವರೂಪವನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರತಿಕೂಲ ಪರಿಣಾಮವು ಸಂಭವಿಸಿರಬಹುದಾದ ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತಹ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ನಷ್ಟ ಪರಿಹಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಕ್ಲೇಮು ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಮೊಬಲಗು ಮತ್ತು ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಲಿಖಿತ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ಮುಕ್ತ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪಬಂಧಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

ಅನುಸೂಚಿ

PR. 725

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆಜ್ಞಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ SC. 40

ವಿಮಲಮ್ಮ ಸಿ.

ಪೀಠಾಧಿಕಾರಿ,

ಕಂದಾಯ ಇಲಾಖೆ.(ಭೂ ಮಂ-2)ಭಾಗ ೩ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ೩

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ. 441) ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು,

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ.,

ನಂ: 132, ಕೆ.ಹೆಚ್.ರಸ್ತೆ, ಪಿ.ಬಿ.ನಂ:2724, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-560 027.

ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಸಿ.ಇ.ಪಿ/ಎಆರ್ಇ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/648 ಮತ್ತು 649/2017-18

ಫಾರಂ ನಂ: 11

38ನೇಯ ರೂಲಿನ (7) ನೇಯ ಕಲಂ

ಸ್ಥಿರ ಸ್ವತ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಂಡದಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆ

ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಗೌರಮ್ಮ ಕೋಂ ಲೇಟ್ ಎನ್. ಶಾಮಣ್ಣ, ನಂ: 466, 4ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- 96 ಇವರ

ಮಾಲೀಕತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಸ್ಥಿರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಹರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀ ಜಿ.ಪಿ.ಸತೀಶ್, ನಂ: 316-ಬಿ, 1ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, 3ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96 ಇವರು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 26.09.2018ರಂದು ಕ್ರಯಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆದು ಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರಾಗಿಯೂ ಮತ್ತು ದರಖಾಸ್ತು ಹಣ ರೂಪಾಯಿ `. 39,55,000/- (ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಮೂವತ್ತೊಂಬತ್ತು ಲಕ್ಷದ ಐವತ್ತೈದು ಸಾವಿರಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ)ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರಾಗಿಯೂ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಶ್ರೀ ಜಿ.ಪಿ.ಸತೀಶ್ ಬಿನ್ ಪುಪ್ಪೇಗೌಡ, ನಂ: 316-ಬಿ, 1ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, 3ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96 (ಹಾಲಿ ವಿಳಾಸ:- ನಂ: 113, 1ನೇ ಮೇನ್, ನಂಜುಂಡೇಶ್ವರನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96) ಇವರು ಉತ್ತರಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ದೃಡಿಪಡಿಸೋಣವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸ್ಥಳ: ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 29-11-2018

ಸೂಚನೆ : ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಸ್ಥಿರ ಸ್ವತ್ತುನ್ನು ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಗೆಜೆಟ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಈ ಇಸ್ತಿಹಾರವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

ಬಿ.ಇ. ಹೊಂಬೇಗೌಡ

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು, (ನಿ.441)

ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು,

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ

ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು.

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ. 441) ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ.,

ನಂ: 132, ಕೆ.ಹೆಚ್.ರಸ್ತೆ, ಪಿ.ಬಿ.ನಂ:2724, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-560 027.

ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಸಿ.ಇ.ಪಿ/ಎ.ಆರ್.ಇ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/648 ಮತ್ತು 649/2017-18

ವಿಷಯ :- ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ ಕೋ-ಆಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 146, ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಬಾಲಗಂಗಾಧರನಾಥ ಸ್ವಾಮಿ ರಸ್ತೆ, 7ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ,

ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇದರ ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ::ಸಿ.ಇ.ಪಿ/ ಎ.ಆರ್.ಇ/ ಯು.ಬಿ.ಎಫ್/648 ಮತ್ತು

649/2017-18ಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು 1960ನೇ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮಗಳ ನಿಯಮ

38(6) (ಎ) ಅನ್ವಯ ಮಾರಾಟ ಸ್ಥಿರೀಕರಣಗೊಳಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ.

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ :- 1) ದಾವಾ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ:ಜೆ.ಆರ್.ಡಿ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/476 ಮತ್ತು 477/2017-18.

2) ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ:ಸಿ.ಇ.ಪಿ/ಎ.ಆರ್.ಇ./ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/648 ಮತ್ತು 649/2017-18.

3) ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರ ವರದಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 22.11.2018.

ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆ:-

ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಗೌರಮ್ಮ ಕೋಂ ಲೇಟ್ ಎನ್. ಶಾಮಣ್ಣ, ನಂ: 466, 4ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- 96

ಇವರು ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ ಕೋ-ಆಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 146, ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಬಾಲಗಂಗಾಧರನಾಥ ಸ್ವಾಮೀಜಿ ರಸ್ತೆ, 7ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-03 ಈ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾಗಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 27.10.2016 ಮತ್ತು ದಿನಾಂಕ 19.12.2016ರಂದು `. 23,95,000/- ಮತ್ತು `. 1,50,000/- ಒಟ್ಟು `. 25,45,000/- (ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತೈದು ಲಕ್ಷದ ನಲವತ್ತೈದು ಸಾವಿರಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ) ಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿ ಆಧಾರ ಮಾಡಿ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಸಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರಾತಿಯ ಷರತ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ನಿಯಮಗಳ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ಮರುಪಾವತಿಸಲು ವಿಫಲರಾಗಿ ಸುಸ್ತಿದಾರರಾದ ಕಾರಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಸಾಲದ ಬಾಕಿ ವಸೂಲಾತಿಗಾಗಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1959, ಕಲಂ 70 ರನ್ವಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಜಂಟಿ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ. 441), ದಾವಾ ಪಂಚಾಯ್ತಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ದಾವಾ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಜೆಆರ್‌ಡಿ/ ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/ 476 ಮತ್ತು 477/2017-18ರಂತೆ ದಾವಾ ಹೂಡಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಾಲದ ಬಾಕಿ ವಸೂಲಾತಿಯಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಜಂಟಿ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ. 441), ದಾವಾ ಪಂಚಾಯ್ತಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಪಡೆದ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಆದೇಶಾನುಸಾರ ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ ಕೋ-ಆಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 146, ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಬಾಲಗಂಗಾಧರನಾಥ ಸ್ವಾಮೀಜಿ ರಸ್ತೆ, 7ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಈ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮಗಳು, 1960 ನಿಯಮ 34(1) ರನ್ವಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ.441) ಮತ್ತು ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಸಿ.ಇ.ಪಿ/ಎ.ಆರ್.ಇ/ ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/648 ಮತ್ತು 649/2017-18ರಂತೆ ದಾಖಲ್ಮಾಡಿ ಅಮಲಜಾರಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು, ಸದರಿ ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ವಿಲೇವಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರಿಗೆ ವಹಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ವಿಲೇವಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರು ದಿನಾಂಕ : 26.09.2018ರಂದು ನಡೆದ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಟ್ಟು 03 ಜನ ಬಿಡ್ಡುದಾರರು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಈ ಪೈಕಿ 03ನೇ ಬಿಡ್ಡುದಾರರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ಜಿ.ಪಿ.ಸತೀಶ್ ಬಿನ್ ಪುಪ್ಪೇಗೌಡ, ನಂ: 316-ಬಿ, 1ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, 3ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96 (ಹಾಲಿ ವಿಳಾಸ ನಂ: 113, 1ನೇ ಮೇನ್, ನಂಜುಂಡೇಶ್ವರನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96) ಇವರು `. 39,55,000/- (ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಮೂವತ್ತೊಂಬತ್ತು ಲಕ್ಷದ ಐವತ್ತೈದು ಸಾವಿರಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ) ಗಳಿಗೆ ಬಿಡ್ ಮಾಡಿ ಅತೀ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಬಿಡ್ಡುದಾರರಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ ಕೋ-ಆಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 146, ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಬಾಲಗಂಗಾಧರನಾಥ ಸ್ವಾಮೀಜಿ ರಸ್ತೆ, 7ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ,

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇದರ ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ದಿನಾಂಕ : 26.09.2018ರಂದು ನಡೆಸಿದ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹರಾಜನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕಾನೂನು ಮತ್ತು ನಿಯಮಗಳನ್ನು ಪಾಲಿಸಿ ಜರುಗಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಗೌರಮ್ಮ ಕೋಂ ಲೇಟ್ ಎನ್. ಶಾಮಣ್ಣ, ನಂ: 466, 4ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- 96 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಇವರ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಶ್ರೀ ಜಿ.ಪಿ.ಸತೀಶ್ ಬಿನ್ ಪುಪ್ಪೇಗೌಡ, ನಂ: 316-ಬಿ, 1ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, 3ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96 (ಹಾಲಿ ವಿಳಾಸ ನಂ: 113, 1ನೇ ಮೇನ್, ನಂಜುಂಡೇಶ್ವರನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96) ಇವರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯ ಹರಾಜನ್ನು ಖಾಯಂಗೊಳಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ (3)ರಂತೆ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಸವಿಸ್ತಾರವಾದ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಖಾಯಂಗೊಳಿಸಿಕೊಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೋರಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 26.09.2018ರಂದು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ನಡೆಸಿದ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿ ಹರಾಜು ನಡವಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿದಾಗ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿ ಹರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಟ್ಟು 03 ಜನ ಬಿಡ್ಡುದಾರರು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಈ ಪೈಕಿ ಅತ್ಯಧಿಕ ಬಿಡ್ಡುದಾರರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ಜಿ.ಪಿ.ಸತೀಶ್ ಬಿನ್ ಪುಪ್ಪೇಗೌಡ, ನಂ: 316-ಬಿ, 1ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, 3ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96 (ಹಾಲಿ ವಿಳಾಸ ನಂ: 113, 1ನೇ ಮೇನ್, ನಂಜುಂಡೇಶ್ವರನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96)ಇವರಿಗೆ `. 39,55,000/- (ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಮೂವತ್ತೊಂಬತ್ತು ಲಕ್ಷದ ಐವತ್ತೈದು ಸಾವಿರಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ) ಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದು ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳಿಂದ ತಿಳಿದು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಹರಾಜು ನಡೆದ 30 ದಿನಗಳೊಳಗೆ ಬಾಕಿದಾರರು ವಾದಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಕೊಡಬೇಕಾದ ಬಾಕಿ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ಮರು ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡದಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ದಿನಾಂಕ : 26.09.2018ರಂದು ನಡೆಸಿದ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿ ಹರಾಜನ್ನು ಖಾಯಂಗೊಳಿಸಬಹುದೆಂದು ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ಕೂಲಂಕುಷವಾಗಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಕೈಗೊಂಡ ಕ್ರಮಗಳು ಕಾನೂನು ಬದ್ಧವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಈ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಸ್ಥಿರೀಕರಣ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಹೊರಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಆದೇಶ

ಬಿ.ಇ.ಹೊಂಬೇಗೌಡ, ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ. 441) ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ

ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಆದ ನಾನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮಗಳು, 1960ರ ನಿಯಮ 38(6) (ಎ) ಅನ್ವಯ

ದತ್ತವಾಗಿರುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ:ಸಿ.ಇ.ಪಿ/ಎ.ಆರ್.ಇ/ ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/648 ಮತ್ತು 649/2017-18ರಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಗೌರಮ್ಮ

ಕೋಂ ಲೇಟ್ ಎನ್. ಶಾಮಣ್ಣ, ನಂ: 466, 4ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- 96 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 26.09.2018ರಂದು ವಾದಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಹರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀ ಜಿ.ಪಿ.ಸತೀಶ್ ಬಿನ್ ಪುಪ್ಪೇಗೌಡ, ನಂ : 316-ಬಿ, 1ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, 3ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96 (ಹಾಲಿ ವಿಳಾಸ ನಂ: 113, 1ನೇ ಮೇನ್, ನಂಜುಂಡೇಶ್ವರನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-96)ಇವರು ಅತೀ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಬಿಡ್ಡುದಾರರಾಗಿದ್ದು ಇವರಿಗೆ `. 39,55,000/- (ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಮೂವತ್ತೊಂಬತ್ತು ಲಕ್ಷದ ಐವತ್ತೈದು ಸಾವಿರಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ)ಗಳಿಗೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ವಿವರಿಸಿರುವ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಹಿರಂಗವಾಗಿ ಹರಾಜು ಮೂಲಕ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದನ್ನು ಖಾಯಂಗೊಳಿಸಿ ಸ್ಥಿರೀಕರಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.

ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ಥಿಯ ವಿವರ

ಪಿ.ಐ.ಡಿ. ನಂ: 10-74-466, ನಂ: 466, 4ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ವಿಜಯಾನಂದನಗರ, ನಂದಿನಿ ಲೇಔಟ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು - 560096. ಅಳತೆ ಪೂರ್ವ-ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ 29` ಅಡಿಗಳು, ಉತ್ತರ-ದಕ್ಷಿಣ 15` ಅಡಿಗಳು.

ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಬಂದಿ

ಪೂರ್ವಕ್ಕೆ - ರಸ್ತೆ,

ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ - ನಂ: 357ರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು,

ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ - ನಂ: 467ರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು,

ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ - ನಂ: 465ರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು.

ಮಾರಾಟದ ಮೊಬಲಗು `. 39,55,000/-ಗಳು

ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 26.09.2018

ಈ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ಮುದ್ರೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 29.11.2018ರಂದು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಬಿ.ಇ. ಹೊಂಬೇಗೌಡ

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು, (ನಿ.441) PD. 101

ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು,

SC. ⁰⁵

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ

ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು.

IN THE COURT OF 43RD ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU.

It is hereby notified to the public that the Shivajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, have seized the following unclaimed Vehicles and such Vehicles are lying in the Police Station as unclaimed so far, hence owners of Vehicles may put their claim within one

List of the seized Vehicles are lying in Shivajinagar Police Station Bengaluru City which have seized under NCR Numbers.

Place : Bengaluru.

Date : 13/11/2018.

43rd Addl. Cheif Metropoliton Magistrate PR - 731

Mayohall, Bengaluru.

SC - 10

Bengaluru City

IN THE COURT OF 1st METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT,

BENGALURU CITY.

It is hereby notified to the public that the Ashok Nagar Traffic Police Station Bengaluru City, have seized the following unclaimed Vehicles and such Vehicles are lying in the Police Station as unclaimed so for. Hence owners of the Vehicles may put their clime one month from this publication.

1st Metropoliton Magistrate Traffic Court

Bengaluru City

List of the seized Vehicles are lying in Ashoka Nagar Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru City which have been seized under

PR - 745

1ST

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT

BENGALURU CITY

SC - 10

IN THE COURT OF 56TH ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY

I here by noticed to the public that the Girinagara Police Station, Bengaluru City have seized the following vehicles as unclaimed and such vehicles are laying in the Girinagar Police Station as unclaimed so far. I hence the owners of the Properties (Vehicles) may put their claim one month from the date of publication.

LVI Additional Chief Metropolitan PR. 773

Magistrate, Bengaluru city SC. 10

IN THE COURT OF 44TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ,

BENGALURU CITY

I her by notified to the public that the Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru City have seized the following vehicles as unclaimed and such vehicles are laying in the Police Station as unclaimed so far. Hence the owners of the Properties (Vehicles) may put their claim one month from the date of publication.

Date : 05-12-2018

List of the seized vehicles are lying in the Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru City which have been seized under

XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan PR. 774

Magistrate, Bengaluru city SC. 10

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M. MAYOHALL BENGALURU It is hereby notified to the General public that the following unclaimed vehicles are in the custody of Byappanahalli Police Station,

Any person having right to claim above vehicles shall approach the Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru city with the Necessary documents within one month from today, Failing which the above said vehicles will be confiscated of Government. Any claims received after the due date will not entertained

PR. 775

X Addl.C.M.M mayohall.

SC. 10

Bengaluru,

IN THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C NIPPANI

AT – NIPPANI

In hereby notified to the public that Nippani Rural Station Belagavi Dist Have Seized following vehicles as unclaimed and such vehicles are lying in the Nippani Rural Police Station as unclaimed so far Hence the owner of vehicles may put their claim within one month from the date of publication.

PR. 776

Prl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C

SC. 15

NIPPANI

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ದಂಡಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರ ಕಛೇರಿ, ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಡಳಿತ ಭವನ, ಬೀರಸಂದ್ರ ಗ್ರಾಮ, ಕೊಯಿರಾ ಅಂಚೆ,

ದೇವನಹಳ್ಳಿ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಗ್ರಾಮಾಂತರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ,

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಬೆಂಗ್ರಾಜಿ/ಜಿಅ/ಕ್ರ.ಸು.ವ-2/2018-19/1547, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 06.12.2018.

ವಿಷಯ : ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ 2013 (ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ) ರಂತೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಗ್ರಾಮಾಂತರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಘಟಕಗಳಿಗೆ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯಗಳನ್ನು ಘೋಷಣೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ.

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ : 1. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಘಟಕಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ(ತಿದ್ದುಪುಡಿ) ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ, 2013ರ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಸಂವ್ಯಶಾಇ 56 ಶಾಸನ, 2013 ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 26.12.2013.

2. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಘಟಕಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ (ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ)ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ, 2014ರ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಸಿಐ 20/ಎಂಎಂಎನ್ 2014 ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 06.02.2014.

3. ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸಿಂಗ್ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ ಸಮಿತಿ ಸಭೆಯ ನಡವಳಿಗಳ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 04.12.2018.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ (ಕ್ರಷರ್‌ಗಳ) ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ 2013ರ ಕಲಂ 3(1)ರಂತೆ ನಮೂನೆ 'ಎ' ಮತ್ತು 'ಎ1' ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದು, ನಿಯಮ 6(3)ರಂತೆ ಕಂದಾಯ, ಅರಣ್ಯ, ಪರಿಸರ ಹಾಗೂ ಗಣಿ ಮತ್ತು ಭೂವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳಿಂದ ಜಂಟಿ ಸ್ಥಳ ತಪಾಸಣೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ, ನಿಯಮ 6 ರಂತೆ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯದ ಷರತ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಪಾಲಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಅರ್ಜಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ (3)ರ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ೧೪ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ಭಾಗ ೩ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸಿಂಗ್ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ ಸಮಿತಿ ಸಭೆಯ ನಡವಳಿಗಳಂತೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಗ್ರಾಮಾಂತರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿನ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಸ್ಥಾಪನೆಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುವ ಅರ್ಜಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಕಲ್ಲು ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಮೋದಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಹೊರಡಿಸುವ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಾಗಿ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ 2013 ರನ್ವಯ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಲು ಕಲಂ (6) ರಂತೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯಗಳೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಘೋಷಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯು ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಕಂದಾಯ, ಅರಣ್ಯ, ಪರಿಸರ ಹಾಗೂ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸಿಂಗ್ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಗಳ ಷರತ್ತಿಗೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು, ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ ಕಂದಾಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಮುನ್ಸೂಚನೆಯನ್ನು ನೀಡದೆ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯನ್ನು ರದ್ಧುಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗುವುದು.

PR. 777

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರು, SC. 25

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸಿಂಗ್ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಗ್ರಾಮಾಂತರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ.

NO. 112/1 (KTK) /2017 CPI Dated: 2nd NOV, 2018

Government of India

Ministry of Labour

Labour Bureau

Consumer Price Index Numbers for Industrial Workers (Base : 2001=100)

KAMLA GULERIA

ECONOMIC OFFICER

JOINT DIRECTOR,

Directorate of Economics & Statistics

Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, BENGALURU-1

Consumer Price Index Numbers for Industrial Workers

No: DES/SIP/PWY/23/2018

State : Karnataka Base : 1987-88=100 Month-Year: September 2018

Date : 27-11-2018

PR - 766

ಜಂಟಿ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು

SC - 05

ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಂಖ್ಯಿಕ ನಿರ್ದೇಶನಾಲಯ,

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು.

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY

It hereby notified to the public that the Banaswadi Police Station, Bangalore City have seized the following vehicles as unclaimed and such vehicles are lying in the Police Station as unclaimed so far. Hence the owners of the Properties (Vehicles) may put their claim one month from the date of the publication.

Bangalore City XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

SC - 10

Mayo hall, Bangalore City.

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಲಯ, ಚಿಕ್ಕಬಳ್ಳಾಪುರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ಚಿಕ್ಕಬಳ್ಳಾಪುರ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಎಲ್.ಎನ್.ಡಿ/ಸಿ.ಆರ್/188/2016-17, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 15/12/2018

ನಮೂನೆ-27

ವಿಷಯ: ಗುಡಿಬಂಡೆ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು, ಸೋಮೇನಹಳ್ಳಿ ಹೋಬಳಿ, ವರ್ಲಕೊಂಡ ಗ್ರಾಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.250 ರ ಪೈಕಿ 2-20 ಎಕರೆೆ ಜಮೀನು ಭಾರತ್ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ್ಸ್ ಲಿಮಿಟೆಡ್ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ರವರಿಗೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಮಾಡುವ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ನಿವೃತ್ತಿಗೊಳಿಸಿ, ಸದರಿ ಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ತಗ್ಗಿಸಿ, ಮುಂದಿನ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳುವ ವಿಚಾರ.

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ: 1. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಪತ್ರದ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಆರ್.ಡಿ.55 ಎಲ್‌ಜಿಕೆ 2018, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 16/10/2018.

2. ಅಸಿಸ್ಟೆಂಟ್ ಕಮೀಷನರ್, ಚಿಕ್ಕಬಳ್ಳಾಪುರ ಉಪ ವಿಭಾಗ, ಚಿಕ್ಕಬಳ್ಳಾಪುರ ರವರ ಪತ್ರದ

ಸಂ:ಎಲ್.ಎನ್.ಡಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್.50/2016-17, ದಿನಾಂಕ:11/01/2017

3. ತಹಶೀಲ್ದಾರ್, ಗುಡಿಬಂಡೆ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು ರವರ ಪತ್ರದ ಸಂ:ಎಲ್.ಎನ್.ಡಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್96*66/2015-16, ದಿ:08/12/2016 1964 ನೇ ನಿಯಮದ 68(1) ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಮೇರೆಗಿನ ಘೋಷಣೆ

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸ್ವತ್ತಾಗಿರುವ ಹಾಗೂ ಈ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಅನುಸೂಚಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಪಡಿಸಲಾದ "ಖರಾಬ್" ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ಜಮೀನು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಉಪಯೋಗಕ್ಕೆ ಸದರಿ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಭೂಕಂದಾಯ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ 1964 ರ 68 ನೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ (1)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಂತೆ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರದತ್ತವಾದ ಅಧಿಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಚಲಾಯಿಸಿ, ಸದರಿ "ಖರಾಬ್" ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ಜಮೀನಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಹಾಗೂ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ಕೊನೆಗೊಳ್ಳತಕ್ಕದೆಂದು ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಘೋಷಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸದರಿ "ಖರಾಬ್" ಪ್ರದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಯುಳ್ಳ ಅಥವಾ ಹಕ್ಕುಳ್ಳ ಅಥವಾ ಈ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಪ್ರತಿಕೂಲ ಪರಿಣಾಮಕ್ಕೊಳಗಾಗುವ ಸಂಭವವಿರುವ ಇತರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಯಾವನೇ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕನು ಅಥವಾ ಯಾವನೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯು ಈ ಜಮೀನನ್ನು ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಇತರೆ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದ ತೊಂಭತ್ತು ದಿನಗಳೊಳಗಾಗಿ ಸದರಿ ಉದ್ದೇಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತನ್ನ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಅಂತಹ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಯ ಅಥವಾ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಸ್ವರೂಪವನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರತಿಕೂಲ ಪರಿಣಾಮವು ಸಂಭವಿಸಿರಬಹುದಾದ ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತಹ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಷ್ಟ ಪರಿಹಾರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲೈಮು ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಮೊಬಲಗು ಮತ್ತು ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಈ ಕಚೇರಿಗೆ ಲಿಖಿತ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಗೆಟಜೆನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕದಿಂದ 90 ದಿನಗಳ ಒಳಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತು ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಕ್ಲೈಮುಗಳನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪಬಂಧಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು.

ಅನುಸೂಚಿ

ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ : ಚಿಕ್ಕಬಳ್ಳಾಪುರ

ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು : ಗುಡಿಬಂಡೆ

ಹೋಬಳಿ : ಸೋಮೇನಹಳ್ಳಿ

ಗ್ರಾಮ : ವರ್ಲಕೊಂಡ

ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂಬರ್ 250 ರ ಪೈಕಿ 2-20 ಎಕರೆ ಜಮೀನು ಭಾರತ್ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಾನಿಕ್ಸ್ ಲಿಮಿಟೆಡ್ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮಂಜೂರು ಮಾಡುವ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹಕ್ಕು ನಿವೃತ್ತಿಗಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಚೆಕ್ಕುಬಂದಿ

ಪೂರ್ವಕ್ಕೆ : ಸ.ನಂ.250 ರ ಉಳಿಕೆ ಜಮೀನು,

ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ : ಸ.ನಂ.250 ರ ಉಳಿಕೆ ಜಮೀನು,

ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ : ರಸ್ತೆ

ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ : ಸ.ನಂ.250 ರ ಉಳಿಕೆ ಜಮೀನು

PR - 786

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು

SC - 25

ಚಿಕ್ಕಬಳ್ಳಾಪುರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ.

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಲಯ, ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ತುಮಕೂರು

ನಂ: ಗಭೂಇ/ಉನಿತು/ಜೆ.ಕ್ರ/ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ/2018-19, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 03-01-2019

ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯ ತುಮಕೂರು ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕಿನ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲು ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ (ಕ್ರಷರ್‌ಗಳ) ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ - 2013 ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳು.

ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ತುಮಕೂರು ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕಿನ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯ ಪಟ್ಟಾ ಜಮೀನಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲ್ಲು ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕವನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲು ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ 2013ರಂತೆ, ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರದೇಶ. ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಕೋಷ್ಟಕದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ತುಮಕೂರು ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕಿನ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕವನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಲು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 29-10-2018ರಂದು ನಡೆದ ಸಮಿತಿ ಸಭೆಯ ತೀರ್ಮಾನದಂತೆ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಗಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ವಿಶೇಷ ಸೂಚನೆ: ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರವು ಮುಂದೆ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾದ ತೀರ್ಮಾನದ ಷರತ್ತಿಗೊಳಪಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತದೆ.

PR - 04

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು

SC - 25

ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ತುಮಕೂರು.

DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, BENGALURU-1

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Consumer Price Index Numbers for Industrial Workers

No. DES /SIP PWX /23/2018, Dated:02-11-2018

Joint Director

Directorate of Economics & Statistics

Bengaluru.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Ministry of Labour

Labour Bureau

'Clerement'Shimla – 171 004

NO. 112/1 (KTK) /2017 CPI, Dated: 3rdOctober, 2018

Consumer Price Index Numbers for Industrial Workers (Base : 2001=100)

MONTH: AUGUST,18

KAMLA GULERIA

ECONOMIC OFFICER

Joint Director

PR - 734

Directorate of Economics & Statistics SC - 10

Bengaluru.

ಲೋಕೋಪಯೋಗಿ, ಬಂದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಒಳನಾಡು ಜಲಸಾರಿಗೆ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 15ರ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಲೋಇ 214 ಇಎಪಿ 2018, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 07-12-2018.

ಮೈಸೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುವ ಗೊದ್ದನಪುರ ಗ್ರಾಮದ ಬಳಿ ಕಪಿಲಾ ನದಿಗೆ ಅಡ್ಡಲಾಗಿ ಸೇತುವೆಯ ಕೂಡು ರಸ್ತೆ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣದ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಪಕ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ರವರು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 15 ರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿರುವ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ, ಸದರಿ ಸೇತುವೆ ಭಾಗದ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಗೆ ಅವಶ್ಯಕವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಘೋಷಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1964ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ, ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಅಥವಾ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರರ (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ) ಪರವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಸುವವರನ್ನು ತಡೆಯುವುದಾಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ಅಡ್ಡಿಪಡಿಸುವುದಾಗಲೀ ಮಾಡತಕ್ಕದ್ದಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಈ ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸಕ್ತಿ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯಾದ ನಂತರ, ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮತ್ತು ವಿಶೇಷ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನಾಧಿಕಾರಿ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಬಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ಅನುಮತಿಯಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಲೇ ಮಾಡುವ, ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ಕ್ರಯ, ಕರಾರು, ಭೋಗ್ಯ, ಲೀಜ್, ಅದಲು-ಬದಲು, ಭೂಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ವಗೈರೆ ಮಾಡುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯ ನಂತರ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಮತ್ತಿತರ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಹಣ ನಿಗದಿ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಅಂತಹ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಗಣನೆಗೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆಗೆ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ), ವಿಶೇಷ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ಕಾರ್ಯಪಾಲಕ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು/ವಿಭಾಗೀಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಯೋಜನಾ ಕಛೇರಿ, ಮೈಸೂರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ತಹಶೀಲ್ದಾರ್‌ರವರ ಕಛೇರಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಲೋಇ: 214: ಇಎಪಿ: 2018

PR- 778

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆಜ್ಞಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ, SC- 200

ಪಿ.ಆರ್. ತಾರಾ

ವಿಶೇಷಾಧಿಕಾರಿ,(ಇಎಪಿ)

ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಅನುದಾನಿತ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳು,

ಲೋಕೋಪಯೋಗಿ, ಬಂದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಒಳನಾಡು ಜಲಸಾರಿಗೆ ಇಲಾಖೆ.

ಲೋಕೋಪಯೋಗಿ, ಬಂದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಒಳನಾಡು ಜಲಸಾರಿಗೆ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

(ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಆಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ)

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 15ರ ಹೆಚ್ಚುವರಿ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಲೋಇ 171 ಇಎಪಿ 2014, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 05-12-2018.

ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆಗೆ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ) ಮತ್ತು ವಿಶೇಷ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧಿನಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ವಿಶೇಷ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು (ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನ) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಯೋಜನೆ, ಕೆ.ಆರ್.ವೃತ್ತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾರ್ಯಪಾಲಕ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು, ಯೋಜನಾ ಕಛೇರಿ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಹುಬ್ಬಳ್ಳಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ತಹಶೀಲ್ದಾರ್‌ರವರ ಕಛೇರಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆಗಾಗಿ ಇಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್

ಘೋಷ್ವಾರೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಲೋಇ: 171: ಇಎಪಿ: 2014

PR.-779

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆಜ್ಞಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ, SC. 200

ಪಿ.ಆರ್. ತಾರಾ

ವಿಶೇಷಾಧಿಕಾರಿ,(ಇಎಪಿ)

ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಅನುದಾನಿತ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳು,

ಲೋಕೋಪಯೋಗಿ, ಬಂದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಒಳನಾಡು ಜಲಸಾರಿಗೆ ಇಲಾಖೆ.

ಲೋಕೋಪಯೋಗಿ, ಬಂದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಒಳನಾಡು ಜಲಸಾರಿಗೆ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

(ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಆಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ)

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 15ರ ಹೆಚ್ಚುವರಿ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಲೋಇ 172 ಇಎಪಿ 2014, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 05-12-2018.

ಹಳೇಬೀಡು-ಆನೇಚೊಕೂರು ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ:21 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸತ್ಯಮಂಗಲ, ಅರಕಲಗೂಡು, ಬರಗೂರು, ನಿಲವಾಗಿಲು, ರಾಮನಾಥಪುರ ಮತ್ತು ಜೆ.ಹೊಸಹಳ್ಳಿ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಹಾಸನದಿಂದ ಪಿರಿಯಾಪಟ್ಟಣದವರಗೆ ಕಿ.ಮೀ 30.000 ರಿಂದ ಕಿ.ಮೀ 60.700, ಕಿ.ಮೀ. 61.000 ರಿಂದ ಕಿ.ಮೀ 78.000 ಮತ್ತು ಕಿ.ಮೀ 81.800 ರಿಂದ ಕಿ.ಮೀ 110.800 ವರೆಗಿನ (Link 54A)ರಸ್ತೆಯನ್ನು ಕೆಶಿಪ್-II ವಿಶ್ವ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಹಾಯದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕೋ ಫೈನಾನ್ಸ್‌ರಡಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಪಡಿಸುವ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಗಲೀಕರಣ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಪಕ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ರವರು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 15 ರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಸದರಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಭಾಗದ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಗೆ ಅವಶ್ಯಕವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಘೋಷಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1964ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ, ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಅಥವಾ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರರ (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಿ) ಪರವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಸುವವರನ್ನು ತಡೆಯುವುದಾಗಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಅಡ್ಡಿಪಡಿಸುವುದಾಗಲಿ ಮಾಡಕೂಡದೆಂದು ಈ ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸಕ್ತಿ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯಾದ ನಂತರ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮತ್ತು ವಿಶೇಷ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನಾಧಿಕಾರಿ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ಅನುಮತಿಯಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಲೇ ಮಾಡುವ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದ ಕ್ರಯ, ಕರಾರು, ಭೋಗ್ಯ, ಲೀಜ್, ಅದಲು-ಬದಲು, ಭೂಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ವಗೈರೆ ಮಾಡುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯ ನಂತರ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಮತ್ತಿತರ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಹಣ ನಿಗದಿ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಅಂತಹ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಗಣನೆಗೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆಗೆ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ), ವಿಶೇಷ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧಿನಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ವಿಶೇಷ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು(ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನ) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಯೋಜನೆ, ಕೆ.ಆರ್ ವೃತ್ತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾರ್ಯಪಾಲಕ ಅಭಿಯಂತರು/ವಿಭಾಗೀಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತ ಯೋಜನಾ ಕಛೇರಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ಮತ್ತು ಹಾಸನ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ತಹಶೀಲ್ದಾರ್‌ರವರ ಕಛೇರಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಘೋಷ್ವಾರೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಲೋಇ: 172: ಇಎಪಿ: 2014

PR.-780

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆಜ್ಞಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ SC. 200

ಪಿ.ಆರ್. ತಾರಾ

ವಿಶೇಷಾಧಿಕಾರಿ,(ಇಎಪಿ)

ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಅನುದಾನಿತ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳು,

ಲೋಕೋಪಯೋಗಿ, ಬಂದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಬಳನಾಡು ಜಲಸಾರಿಗೆ ಇಲಾಖೆ.

PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS SECRETARIAT (ELECTIONS)

NOTIFICATION

No. DPAR 05 CHUTAA 2018, BENGALURU, DATED: 19th November, 2018

In pursuance of Section 106 (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Order of the High Court of Karnataka dated: 19th November, 2016 in Election Petition No. 5/2013 is published hereunder for general information:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

ELECTION PETITION N0.5 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

DR.K.ANNADANI

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

S/O LATE KENCHAIAH

HUSKUR VILLAGE AND POST

MALAVALLI TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT — 571 430

...PETITIONER (BY SRI.NISHANTH , A.V.ADV.)

AND:

1. P.M.NARENDRASWAMY

S/O P.L MALLANNA

POORIGAALI VILLAGE AND POST

B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT — 571 430

2. D.N.KUMARASWAMY

S/O H.NANJUNDAIAH

DORANAHALLI VILLAGE,

MIKKERE POST, MALAVALLI TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430

3. KRISHNAMURTHY M

S/0 CHANDRAMMA

VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR V.C. NAALE

KAASARAVAADI ROAD, MANDYA — 571 401

4. K. BASAVARAJU

S/O KEMPAIAH

SASIYAALAPURA VI LLAGE,

KIRUGAAVALU HOBLI,

MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

5. H.NANJUNDAIAH

S/O LATE HOMBAALE NANJAIAH

3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR

BENGALURU -560 098

6. B.S.PUTTASWAMY

S/O LATE SANNAIAH BOPPASAMUDRA

C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,

MAN DYA DISTRICT

7. M.MAHESH

S/O MARIMAADAIAH

BALLAGERE VILLAGE,

B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICTಭಾಗ ೩ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ೨೭ 8. G.MUNIRAJU S/O LATE GANGAPPA

ATUVANAHALLI, HADLI POST

MALAVALLI TALUK

MAN DYA DISTRICT

9. DR.MURTHY L

N.E.S.LAYOUT,

HOUSE No.44, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,

MALAVALLI TOWN, MALAVALLI TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT

10. B.SOMASHEKAR

HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI

MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT

11. M.KRISHNAMURTHY

S/O MUTTAIAH

WARD No.13, KEERTHINAGAR

MALAVALLI TOWN, MALAVALLI TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT — 571 430

12. M.S.SHASHIKUMAR

S/O LATE SOMASHEKAR

NO.102/4, 3RD CROSS,

V.S.GARDEN, J_J.R. NAGAR,

BENGALURU _ 560 025.

13. S.SWAMY

S/O LATE MADAIAH

HOOVINAKOPPALU VILLAGE,

KIRUGAAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR, S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SMT.ANUPAMA BORDOLI, FOR M/S SHETI'Y

& HEGDE ASSOCIATES ADVS. FOR 1

SRI.M.B.NARAGUND, SRLCOUNSEL FOR R-2;

SRI.T,NARAYANASWAMY, ADV. FOR R-4;

SRI RENBEN JACOB, ADV. FOR R-5, R-6, R-9 AND 13)

THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 81 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1951, BY ONE DR.K.ANNADANI, PETITIONER: CANDIDATE ALONG WITH HIS COUNSEL SRI A V NISHANTH, CHALLENGING THE ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI P.M.NARENDRASWAMY TO THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE FROM NO. 186, MALAVALLI LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, GENERAL ELECTIONS HELD IN THE YEAR 2013, PRAYING TO :-

A) CALL FOR RECORDS; B) ORDER FOR RECOUNT; C) SET ASIDE THE ELECTION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FROM 186'MALAVALLI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY; D) DECLARE PETITIONER AS DULY ELECTED TO FILL THE SEAT OF KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FROM 186-MALAVALLI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY; E) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.9.2016 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This Election Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the first respondent to 186—Malavalli Assembly Constituency in the election held on 5.5.2013 and counting of votes was taken on 8.5.2013. It is the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the election of the first respondent and to declare the petitioner as duly elected to the said Assembly Constituency.

2. The facts of the case to be stated in brief are that the petitioner was sponsored by Janatha Dal (Secular) Party (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the JD(S)') and first respondent was sponsored by Indian National Congress Party (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the INC'). The first respondent was a member of Indian National Congress for more than 2 decades and he೨೮ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ಭಾಗ ೩ had sought for party ticket in the elections to the 13th Karnataka Legislative Assembly in 2008. However, he was not sponsored by the said party. Sri Y S Siddaraju was sponsored as the INC candidate. Sri Y S Siddaraju made a complaint to the President of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee ('KPCC' for short) requesting for expulsion of first respondent from INC as he contested against the Official INC candidate and also Malavalli Block Congress Committee. The KPCC expelled the first respondent from INC for a period of six years from 2008. It was in vogue till April, 2014. Without enrolling himself, the first respondent declared as the member of INC and a candidate sponsored by INC. The president of the KPCC has not withdrawn the expulsion order passed in the year 2008. The first respondent claimed to have been set up by INC in the nomination paper. He also filed 'A' and ' B' Forms issued by INC signed by AICC General Secretary and President, KPCC. Note 3 of the 'B' Form states "it is certified that each of the candidates whose name is mentioned above is a member of this political party and his name is duly borne on the rolls of members of this party'.

3. Paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 prescribes certain conditions that a candidate is a member of the political party who claims that he is set up by a political party under sub—paragraph (aa) which has to be stated in prescribed 'B' Forms. Therefore, the statement contained in clause 3 of the 'B' Forms is a false statement/certificate issued by the authorized person by the political party under which the first respondent had contested as a party candidate.

4. The first respondent who was an independent MLA has not resigned as Member of the 13th Legislative Assembly from his constituency, and therefore, he continued to be an independent MLA till dissolution of house on 15.5.2013 and he had also not joined INC and enrolled himself as member of the said party by paying required membership fee as per Party Constitution as on the date of filing of his nomination and also on the date of last day for filing of nomination. Therefore, the certificate issued by the President of KPCC is false and cannot be accepted. The nomination paper filed by the first respondent subscribed by only one proposer is not valid in law in terms of Section 33 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the nomination of the first respondent was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer.

5. The first respondent in 2008 elections had secured about 45,288 votes as an independent candidate and was elected. Similarly in 2013 elections, majority of the members of INC party (at least 4000) would have voted in favour of the first respondent since he was nominated as party candidate. About 21000 voters of the Constituency have voted in favour of the first respondent taking into consideration of symbol on which the first respondent contested in view of about 10% of the electorates being illiterate voters. Therefore, the election result has been materially affected by 25000 votes cast in favour of first respondent and first respondent has won by a narrow margin of 538 votes. There is improper acceptance of nomination since it is not subscribed by 10 electors as required under Section 33 of the Act. Therefore, the election of the first respondent is liable to be set aside under Section 100(d)(i) and 100(d)(iv) of the Act.

6. The counting of votes was in two small halls in which 15 tables were arranged. In the first hall of the Returning Officer, 7 tables were arranged and in the second hall, 8 tables were arranged which was supervised by the Assistant Returning Officer, who is the Tahasildar of Malavalli Taluk of Mandya District. Table Nos.8 to 15 (eight tables) were arranged in the hall and supervised by the latter. Each counting table had a Counting Supervisor, two Counting Assistants and other assisting staff for the purpose of counting of votes. The petitioner was leading in all the rounds up to sixteenth round of counting. At that stage, the Returning Officer started receiving calls and to answer the same, he used to go to a private room, adjacent to the counting hall. He was not in a mood to answer the queries put—

forth by the petitioner and his counting agents. There was no display of votes from the twelfth round onwards on the black board. There were eighteen rounds in counting of election votes in question. There was no display of votes secured by the candidates either on the black board, screen or through the public address system after the commencement of the thirteenth round.

7. According to the agents of the election petitioner as well as other candidates, the petitioner had won the election by a comfortable margin of 1830 votes. Victory celebrations took place immediately after the News channels flashed the news that the petitioner herein had won. However, the results were not declared. There was no announcement of votes polled after twelfth round. The petitioner and his counting agents found that there was foul play in the counting process particularly from thirteenth round onwards and started objecting orally as to why there was the delay in declaration of results. However, the Returning Officer was busy on his mobile phone.

8. Suddenly at 2.30 pm. the first respondent was declared to have been elected as he had secured 538 votes more than the petitioner.

Neither the petitioner nor his counting agents were given any opportunity to raise objections regarding counting of votes particularly from thirteenth round onwards. The petitioner and his counting agents were not made known the votes entered in Form No.20. There was only a declaration of results of the election. Announcement of votes secured by each of the candidates was not clone as provided under Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules'). The entries made in Form No.17C Part II and Form No.20 after round No.12 was neither announced nor shown either to the petitioner or to his counting agents solely with an intention to favour the first respondent.

9. Counting of postal ballots was in contravention of Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961. Several valid postal ballots were rejected which were about 50 in number, which was in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for copies of Form No.17C Part 1 and Part 2 after declaration of results to verify the number of votes polled and also the number of votes displayed in the Electronic Voting Machines ('EVMs' for short) at the time of counting and also for authentication of counting agents of the petitioner by affixing their signatures, which was not furnished on the ground that documents were kept in the strong room.

respondent and the total number of votes found in the EVM's in each of the 15 tables. Discrepancies, as noted by the election agent and the officials figured in 7 Polling Station, in which the petitioner had secured more votes than the first respondent. The petitioner had secured 538 votes more than what is reflected in the result sheet. The petitioner had secured 61,869 votes and first respondent had secured 61,371 votes. Thus the result of the election has materially affected in view of wrong entries/manipulation in the second room containing Table 8 to 15 which was supervised by the Assistant Returning Officer.

11. The petitioner made representation for re—tabulation at 1.45 pm. to the Returning Officer. The petitioner also made representation for furnishing of certain documents required for the purpose of verification and challenging the election of Respondent No.1. The petitioner made representation to provide various information, but the same were not furnished to him. Thus the petitioner has filed the present election petition.

12. The first respondent filed written statement denying the various averments made in the election petition. The election petition is contrary to provisions of Section 83(b) of the Act in not furnishing the full particulars of corrupt practice. The Affidavit in Form No.25 as contemplated under Rule 94—A of the Rules was not complied with The pleadings in the election petition are either vague, bald or are bereft of material facts and particulars. The expulsion of the first respondent was withdrawn and the respondent herein was the member of INC for which reason the respondent was given nomination paper and Form 'A' and 'B' to contest the election. The first respondent has been set up by the INC in the nomination papers and along with it he has filed A and B Forms issued by INC signed by AICC General Secretary and KPCC President. On the day of filing, nomination first respondent was the member of Indian National Congress.

The question of issuance of false statement or certificate by the authorized person by a political party is not correct.

13. The petitioner on the one hand states that until sixteenth round he was leading and on the other hand he states that after twelfth round there was no display of results on the black board.

14. The first respondent has stated that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in filing the above petition. There is no truth in any of the statement imputing allegations against the respondent and in process of conduct of election and counting of votes. The petitioner is making reckless allegations without any verification of truth and correct facts in a mechanical manner. There is no infraction of any of the provisions of the Act, Rules or direction issued by the Election Commission. The election was conducted in accordance with law and petitioner has not made out any cause of action, much less for setting aside the election of this respondent and for a fresh poll. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the election petition.

15. The following issues were framed.

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the 1st respondent is not a member of the Indian National Congress as on the date of filing of his nomination to contest the election from No.186, Malavalli Assembly Constituency, Karnataka?

(ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the acceptance of the nomination paper of the 1st respondent by the Returning Officer as a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress is illegal and improper and the same has materially affected the result of the election to No.186, Malavalli Assembly Constituency?

(iii) Whether the petitioner proves that the acceptance of the nomination paper of the 1st respondent by the Returning Officer is improper and illegal and the same is void and has materially affected the result of election to No.186, Malavalli Constituency?

(iv) Whether the petitioner proves that there was illegality and irregularity in counting of votes and postal ballot papers in contravention of the conduct of Election Rules and Representation of Peoples Act etc., and has materially affected the result of the election?

(v) Whether the petitioner proves that he secured more number of valid votes i.e., 61,869 votes, than the votes secured by the 1st respondent i.e., 61,637 votes, as alleged in para No.22 of the Election Petition, so that the petitioner himself be entitled for declaration at the hands of this Court to fill the seat of No.186, Malavalli Assembly Constituency?

(vi) Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside for improper reception of valid votes by undue influence of the Returning Officer in favour of the 1st respondent in counting of votes in contravention of the conduct of Election Rules and Representation of the People Act, etc.,?

(vii) Whether the petitioner proves that the petitioner secured more number of valid votes than the returned candidate - Respondent No.1, so that the petitioner himself be entitled for declaration at the hands of this Hon'ble Court as the returned candidate to fill the seat of No.186, Malvalli Assembly Constituency?

Congress has been withdrawn prior to the filing of his nomination paper to contest the election from No.186, Malvalli Assembly Constituency?

(ix) Whether recounting is necessitated and what order?

16. In order to prove case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW—l and 18 other witnesses as PW-2 to PW-19 and got marked Ex.P1 to P148 and closed his side. PW-2 Sri Kambaraju is the election agent of the petitioner. PW-3 to PW-14 are the counting agents for the petitioner. PW-15 is the news reporter of Public T.V. and PW-16 is the news Editor of Prajavani newspaper. PW- 17 is the Returning Officer. PW-18 is the office Secretary of KPCC. PW-19 Sri Y S Siddaraju, is an advocate and social worker. The first respondent himself was examined as RW-l and one more witness Sri Boseraju and got marked Ex.R1 to R82.

17. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1; and the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

18. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent was not the Member of INC. He was expelled from the party on the basis of the complaint letter-Exhibit P4. Respondent No.1 himself has admitted the fact of his expulsion from Party, but, it is contended by the respondent No.1 that expulsion was withdrawn and he was the Member of INC as on the date of filing nomination.

Respondent No.1 having admitted expulsion, has not produced any material to show that he was on the roll of Members of INC as on the date of filing nomination. The petitioner has examined PW.19-Mr. Siddaraju, who has admitted his signature on the complaint letter.

He has also produced news articles appeared in the newspapers which are marked as Exhibits P34 to P36. He has also examined PW.16 news Editor in this regard which conclusively prove the fact that the first respondent was expelled and was not on the roll of Members of INC as on the date of filing nomination. Therefore, the respondent No.1 ought to have been proposed by ten voters and not by one voter as prescribed in Section 33 of the Act. If the first respondent was not accepted of his nomination, the petitioner would have been voted and thus the acceptance of nomination of the first respondent has materially affected the result of the election. It is further submitted that Thirteenth Legislative Assembly of Karnataka came to be dissolved on 21st May 2013. There is no document to show that the first respondent had resigned from being a Member of the Assembly of the Thirteenth Legislative Assembly before the term comes to an end and without resigning it is impossible to join a political party. It is impractical for the Court to consider the fact that the first respondent joined the INC when he was a sitting member. It is submitted, petitioner made efforts to secure information regarding the expulsion order. However, one political party will not get the information of the other political party but still the Office Secretary of the KPCC has clearly stated that he was working in the office for the past 28 years as the Office Secretary and he is not a Party President. It is submitted that just issuance of Form A and B does not prove that the first respondent was the Member of a political party. The first respondent though has produced Exhibit R81 the acknowledgement, the author of the said document has not been examined.

Therefore, Exhibit R81 is a created document and cannot be looked into. It is submitted that therefore this Court has to take that the expulsion order was passed in view of the petitioner producing Press statements wherein the Reporter of 'Public TV' and the news editor of Prajavani is not cross—examined. That, Sri Siddaraju the witness who is a Congress Party Member, himself has deposed that the first respondent was expelled for a period of six years. It is also submitted that there is an illegality and irregularity in the process of counting of votes. The respondent has not objected marking of tabulation prepared by the election agent which prove that the petitioner has secured more number of votes than the first respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that it is a case where the election of the first respondent has to be set aside and the petitioner has to be declared as elected.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESH ROUT v. RAVINDRA NATH ROUT reported in (2012)1 SCC 762 page 39 to 41, 47 and 48; and in the case of KRISHNA MOHINI v/s MOHINDER NATH SOFAT reported in (2000)1 SCC 145 paragraph 34 to advance the contention that mere issuance of Form—B will not satisfy that he is a member of that political party unless it is shown that his name continued to be on the membership roll and that all the conditions of paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 have to be satisfied. Further, the learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. reported in (1976)3 SCC 32 and placed reliance on paragraph 12, in the case of TOMASO BRUNO AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2015)7 SCC 178 and referred to paragraph 27 to advance the contention that if the party to the proceeding withholds the best document or witness, then adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of L C HANUMANTHAPPA v. H.D. SHIVAKUMAR reported in (2016) 1 SCC 322 and referred to paragraph 24 and 25 to advance the contention "doctrine of relation back" as to how he could not amend the election petition after coming to know of the irregularities in the conduct of election after the documents are handed over to the petitioner. Relying upon Section 56, 57 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1372 and the judgments in the case of BALWAN SINGH v. LAKSHMI NARAIN AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1960 SC 770 paragraph 10, learned counsel submitted that if the documents are marked without objection in spite of there being no plea in the petition, Court can take judicial notice of the same.

20. It is submitted on behalf of the first respondent that the contention that first respondent cannot become the member of INC being an independent candidate and the same will lead to disqualification under Tenth Schedule is highly erroneous and misleading. The question relating to disqualification under Tenth Schedule has to be decided by the Speaker, which is final, subject to judicial review.

However, such an issue cannot be a subject matter for consideration in an election petition. Further, the power of the Speaker to disqualify a Member under the Anti-defection laws cannot travel beyond the tenure of the Assembly of which he was the Speaker.

election. The petitioner has miserably failed to make out any ground to show that the nomination paper of the first respondent has been wrongly accepted.

21. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner being a member of rival political party cannot question the Membership of the respondent in the INC in an election petition. Anybody can become a Member of the INC by paying requisite membership fee as per the bye-laws and membership is an internal matter of the INC. Membership is inter se between INC and its Members and third party, that too a rival political party, cannot question the membership of the respondent. It is the congress party that nominated the returned candidate as its candidate on its party symbol and therefore, whether the returned candidate is an independent candidate and would have become member of that political party as per their bye-laws or vice-versa or not is not of any significance. The petitioner has miserably failed to make out any ground to show that the nomination paper has been wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer. None of the provisions enumerated in Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191 of the Constitution of India are violated. Neither Section 33 nor 34 of the Act was violated. Petitioner has based expulsion of the first respondent on the basis of newspaper report, petitioner's self—serving statement and Xerox copy of the complaint given by one Siddaraju. None of the above documents are admissible in evidence. In this regard, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on QAMARUL ISLAM v. S.K. KANTHA reported in 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 5 and submitted that fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and thereby inadmissible in evidence in the absence of maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.

The sayings and doings of third person are, as a rule, irrelevant, so that no proof of them can be admitted. Every act done or spoken which is relevant on any ground must be proved by someone who see it with his own eyes and heard it with his own ears. To fortify the said submission, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of LAXMI RAJ SHETTY & ANR. Vs., STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1988) 3 SCC 319 Para-26.

22. Learned senior counsel has contended that photocopy of the document in the absence of original is not admissible and in this regard he relied upon the judgment in the case of RAM SURSH SINGH vs., PRABHAT SINGH reported in (2009) 6 SCC 681. Petitioner has failed to produce expulsion order and has failed to adduce any evidence to show that result of the election has been materially affected due to the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent. It is further contended that decision in the election petition can be given only on the positive and affirmative evidence and not merely on speculation and suspicion, however strong they are. In this regard the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the case of RAM SURESH SINGH vs., PRABHAT SINGH (2009)6 SCC 681. The petitioner was fully aware of the fact that expulsion of the respondent was withdrawn and respondent was the member of INC for which reason the respondent was given nomination paper and Form A and B to contest the election and therefore, there was no clear and unambiguous statement made by the respondent No.1 in his written statement regarding expulsion, the respondent only negated the contention of the petitioner and the same cannot be taken as unequivocal admission by the respondent and it was further explained in the evidence. Thus it does not discharge the petitioner from the burden cast on him to prove that the petitioner was not the member of the INC. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of JEEVAN DIESELS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. JASBIR SINGH CHADDA AND (HUF) ANOTHER reported in 2010(6) SCC 601; and in the case of (2012)5 SCC 634 JOSHNA GOUDA v. BRUNDABAN GOUDA AND ANOTHER to contend that the judgment cannot be signed upon admission in a pleading or an affidavit unless the admissions were clear and unequivocal. It is submitted a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but in a given case, it may be explained or clarified it may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Petitioner sought to lead evidence on the discrepancies in Form 17-A and 17-B, without there being any foundation in pleadings.

Evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be adduced nor such evidence can be taken into consideration. In this regard, learned senior counsel placed reliance on KATTI NAKKULA MURALI KRISHNA v. VEERAMALLA KOTESHWAR RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2010)1 SCC 466. Lastly, it is contended that in matters of election, will of the people must prevail and Courts would be understandably extremely slow to set at naught will of the people truly and freely exercised; otherwise the Courts would be pitting their will against the will of the people. In this regard, decision in the case of AZHAR HUSSAIN v. RAJIV GANDHI reported in AIR 1986 SC 1253 is relied upon.

23. After hearing the rival contention of the parties, now let me consider the issues framed in the case.

Issues No.1 to 3 and 8:

24. These issues are taken together as they are interlinked in order to avoid repetition. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the first respondent was not the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination, and therefore, in accordance with Section 33 of the Act there should have been ten proposers, and therefore, the election is to be set aside under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act. 25. PW1 has deposed to the petition averments in his chief examination. In the cross—examination, PW1 has stated, as follows:

"it is true that I do not have personal knowledge of anybody becoming member of Indian National Congress Party since 1999. It is true that I came to know about the expulsion of respondent No.1 from Congress Party in 2008 through paper. It is true that I do not have personal knowledge about respondent No.1 having membership in INC for 20 years prior to 2008. He volunteers that he knew through media. I am is not aware of taking permission from the Party other than INC for admitting to membership of INC. It is true that there is declaration in the B Form to the effect that the petitioner is a member of JD(S) Party. "೩೨ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ಭಾಗ ೩ 26. PW.19 is Shri Y.S. Siddaraju is a member of INC Party. He has stated in the evidence as follows: "I contested once for the Legislative Assembly Elections for the year 2008 from Malavalli Constituency. I know respondent No.1. It is true that he contested along with me and he contested as a rebel candidate for Congress. It is true that he had given complaint for respondent having contested as rebel candidate to Congress. I see Exhibit P4. I have learnt that Party has dismissed him from Membership. He has stated in the cross-examination that I have not been given any membership certificate. Disciplinary Committee and Party President have taken action. I have not attended the proceedings. I have not been communicated the action taken by the Committee".

27. The first respondent has been examined as RW-l. It is elicited from the mouth of RW-l that he had not received any orders for having expelled by the party. He was permitted to continue as a Congress Member by the then KPCC President. The suggestion that he was expelled for a period of 6 years from 2008 has been denied by this RW-l. The suggestion that election statutory forms were kept in strong room at his instance is denied. It is admitted that he has taken certified copy of Form 17-A, 17-C Part 1 and II on the order passed by this Court. The suggestion that entries made in Form No.20, 17-A, 17-C Part-I and II are false is denied by RW-l.

28. In order to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner has relied upon the evidence of himself—PW.1, PW.19 Mr. Siddaraju, and exhibit P4 the letter, and reports published in the newspapers marked as Exhibit P34, P35 and P36 on 27th March 2015; and the evidence of PW.16 who is news editor of Prajavani news paper to show that first respondent was expelled from the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee. Whereas, it is the contention of the first respondent that the expulsion was withdrawn and by issuance of nomination and Form A and B it is deemed that he was/is the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination. The petitioner has failed to produce the order issued by the competent person expelling the first respondent from the Party. Based on newspaper reports, Xerox copy of the letter issued by PW.19 Siddaraju, evidence of PW-16 and the self-serving statement of Petitioner in place of nomination paper and Form A and B issued to the first respondent, it cannot be said that the first respondent was not the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination. PW-19 has admitted in his cross-examination that as a member he has not been issued with membership certificate.

29. Further, membership in a co-operative society only brings about a contractual relationship among the members forming it subject to the Act and the Rules. Therefore, membership is inter se between INC and its members, a third party, that too, a rival political party cannot question the membership of the respondent to the INC is the contention of the first respondent. In this regard, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ZOROASTRIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER v. DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO—OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (URBAN) AND OTHERS reported in (2005)5 SCC 632 and contended that internal matter of a political party cannot be questioned by a third party in an election petition. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

"Membership in a co-operative society only brings about a contractual relationship among the members forming it subject of course to the Act and the Rules. One becomes a member in a co-operative society either at the time of its formation or acquires membership in it on possessing the requisite qualification under the bye-laws of the society and on being accepted as a member. It is not as if one has a fundamental right to become a member of a co- operative society. But certainly, if the application of one for membership, who is otherwise qualified to be a member under the Act, Rules and the bye-laws of the society, is rejected unreasonably or for frivolous reasons, the person may be entitled to enforce his claim to become a member in an appropriate forum or court of law. This is the effect of the decision in Jain Merchants Co-operative Housing Society vs. HUF of Manubhai (1995 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter 19) relied on by the High Court. The said decision does not lay down a proposition, nor can it lay down a proposition, that even a person who does not qualify to be a member in terms of the bye-laws of a society can enforce a right to become a member of that society. It is one thing to say that it is not desirable to restrict membership in a society based solely on religion or sex but it is quite different thing to say that any such voluntary approved bye-law containing such a restriction could be ignored or declared unconstitutional by an authority or a tribunal created under the Act itself. Normally, the bye-laws of a society do not have the status of a statute and as held by this Court in Co- operative Central Credit Bank Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (AIR 1970 SC 245) bye-laws are only the rules which governs the internal management or administration of a society and they are of the nature of articles of association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They may be binding between the persons affected by them but they do not have the force of a statute. "

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect has submitted that mere issuance of Form A and B is not the proof of a party being member of a political party and that party, in addition to issuance of Form A and B, has to prove that he was the member on the Rolls of that political Party. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESH ROUT (supra) and placed reliance on paragraphs 39 to 41, 47 and 48. The same are extracted below:

"39. The 1968 Order has been made by the Commission to provide for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols of elections in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies for the registered political parties (recognised or unrecognised) and the independent candidates. Para 13 provides in unmistakable terms that for a candidate to be considered to have been set up by a political party in a parliamentary or assembly constituency, he has to comply with the conditions set out in clauses (a) to (e) thereof.

'34. ...In order to be a candidate set up by a registered and recognised political party so as to take advantage of being proposed by a single elector, all the four requirements set out in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of para 13 of 1968 Order must be satisfied.

The Court went on to say that if any one or more of the requirements are not satisfied, the benefit of nomination being proposed by a single elector is not available to him.

41. Clause (e) of para 13 of the 1968 Order is equally important. It reads, "Forms A and B are signed, in ink only, by the said office-bearer or person authorised by the party". Proviso appended to para 13 makes a provision that no facsimile signature or signature by means of rubber stamp, etc. of any such office-bearer or authorised person shall be accepted and no form transmitted by fax shall be accepted. In other words, for a candidate, proposed by a single elector alone, to be treated as a candidate set up by a recognised political party, the filing of notice and communication in Forms A and B referable to clauses (b), (c) and (d) and in accord with clause (e) of para 13 of the 1968 Order is essential and on its non-compliance, the nomination of such candidate is liable to be rejected".

31. Further, he places reliance on the judgment in the case of KRISHNA MOHINI (supra) and refers to paragraph 34 of the judgment.

The same is extracted here below:

"The distinction between nomination filed by a candidate set up by a recognised political party and a candidate not set up by a recognised political party is precise. A perusal of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act makes it clear that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party, meaning thereby a candidate set up by an unrecognised political party or an independent candidate, in order to be duly nominated for election must have his nomination paper subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the Constituency. If such nomination paper be subscribed by only one elector as proposer or by a number of electors less than ten, then it will amount to non- compliance with the provisions of Section 33. A candidate, who is merely a substitute or a cover candidate set up by a recognised political party, may file his nomination paper proposed by only one elector of the Constituency. If the nomination paper of the approved candidate of that political party is accepted, the nomination paper filed by the substitute or cover candidate, shall be liable to be rejected because there can be only one candidate set up by a recognised political party. In order to be a candidate set up by a registered and recognised political party so as to take advantage of being proposed by a single elector, all the four requirements set out in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Para 13 of the Symbols Order must be satisfied. If any one or more of the requirements are not satisfied, the benefit of nomination being proposed by a single elector is not available to him. A situation can be visualized where more candidates than one may be aspiring to be the candidates each set up by the same recognized political party. The one in respect of whom notice and communication in forms A and B referable to sub-para (b), (c) and (d) of Para 13 of Symbols Order have been filed not later than 3.00 p.m. on the last date for making nominations shall be treated as a candidate set up by such political party. His nomination paper, even if subscribed to by single elector as proposer, shall be valid subject to satisfying other conditions as to validity. If any of the requirements contemplated by sub-para (b), (c) and (d) of Para 13 of the Symbols Order are not complied with by filing the requisite notice and communication, then the candidate shall not be deemed to be one set up by the recognised political party. His nomination, if subscribed by a single elector or electors less than ten, shall be liable to be rejected. If the nomination paper of such a candidate is subscribed to by ten proposers being electors of the Constituency within the meaning of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, then the nomination paper cannot be rejected because an error or omission as regards symbol or choice thereof being a defect not of a substantial character, would not come in the way of the nomination being accepted. The nomination paper shall be accepted as valid and an appropriate symbol to which the candidate may be entitled in accordance with the Symbols Order shall be allotted by the Election Commission".

32. Thus, it is clear, in the place of Form A and B and nomination papers issued to the first respondent would probabalise that he was a member on the roll of INC as on the date of nomination. Otherwise he would not have been allotted nomination paper and Form A & B for the purpose of contesting the election as a nominee of INC.

33. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first respondent has not produced any document to show that he had resigned as an independent Member of Legislative Assembly so as to become Member of INC and the House was dissolved on 21st May, 2013.

In the absence of the same, the first respondent could not have become Member of the INC. For this, the learned Senior counsel submits that even assuming that first respondent has incurred any disqualification from being a Member of XII Legislative Assembly, the Speaker cannot disqualify the first respondent from contesting in the next election, as he has no such power. Therefore, it cannot be said that the acceptance of nomination of the first respondent is illegal or improper on the ground that he was not nominated from a political party and he ought to have been proposed by 10 voters and that such acceptance of nomination has materially affected the election results.

34. The burden of proving issue No.8 is on the respondent No.1. The first respondent contends that issuance of nomination paper and issuance of Form A and B from INC would prove that he was the member on the rolls of INC as on the date of filing nomination. As already stated, the petitioner has failed to produce the expulsion order. The materials on which the petitioner places reliance to say that೩೪ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ಭಾಗ ೩ first respondent was expelled, are not solely reliable to conclude that the first respondent was not the member on the rolls of INC as on the date of nomination. The first respondent could have produced the order withdrawing the expulsion. But, on the basis of the available materials, solely on the basis that he has not produced the order withdrawing the expulsion and the petitioner failing to produce the expulsion order, it cannot be said that the order of expulsion was not withdrawn.

35. It is the contention of the petitioner that there are two Blocks in Malavalli Assembly Constituency, one Malavalli Rural and another Malavalli Town. Both the Blocks has 2,500 members each. Both the blocks, as a natural phenomena, tend to vote in favour of the congress candidate. Therefore, had the first respondent not contested from Congress Party, those 5000 votes would have come to the petitioner. It is already held above that acceptance of nomination of the first respondent is neither illegal nor improper: Therefore, this aspect of the matter need not be gone into in detail.

36. It is contended by the petitioner that the first respondent has admitted that he was expelled from the party for some time. Therefore, the first respondent has to prove that the expulsion order was withdrawn. PW—1 has admitted in his evidence that he has not produced any membership documents of JD(S) political party along with ' B' form before the Returning Officer. PW-l has denied that Ex.P4 complaint & P5 article published in weekly magazine Outlook, have been prepared in challenging the result of respondent No.1 since both petitioner and Siddaraju got defeated against respondent No.1 in 2008 elections. PW—19 has admitted that he has not been issued with membership certificate from INC. Section 87.3 of the Act provides that there shall be no admission of election petition where there is no evidence on controversies, nor covered by issues and the pleadings. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that the first respondent was expelled and it was continued even on the date of filing of nomination.

37. The petitioner has stated that the respondent No.1 has admitted the fact of expulsion on the complaint made by one Sri Siddaraju (PW-19). When such expulsion is admitted, then it need not be proved. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has admitted in his written statement that he was expelled and thereafter it was recalled. In the chief examination, he has reiterated the same and so also in the cross-examination. When such admissions are made unequivocally, legal inference is to be drawn that pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was not the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination is admitted by the first respondent. It is, therefore, sufficient to comply the maxim 'admitted facts need not be proved". It is submitted, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent No.1 has admitted the fact of expulsion, the petitioner has also proved the same by examining himself as PW—l and he has also examined one Sri Siddaraju PW-19 and news Editor of Prajavani as PW—16.

These witnesses have deposed the fact that the Respondent No.1 has been expelled. When such materials and evidence are available, that has to be taken for the purpose of expulsion.

38. In this regard, the materials before the Court are examined. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner, written statement and evidence of the respondent No.1 has been examined. It is acceptable principle that when the fact is admitted it need not be proved as is contemplated under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the proviso provides that it is the discretion of the Court to accept the materials and evidence placed by the petitioner. In the light of the said proviso, the case of the respective parties is further examined.

39. When it is a specific case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has been expelled, it is his burden to place materials. The petitioner has made specific pleadings in the petition. Petitioner has been examined as PW-l and news editor as PW—16. These materials disclose that the Respondent No.1 has been expelled. However, that itself cannot be taken as a conclusive proof. The facts raised by the petitioner are to be proved at the first instance and facts if it is admitted, then only it can be taken for the purpose of expulsion. The news reader spoke about telecast of the news and editor about the expulsion of Respondent No.1. News paper materials and electronic media cannot be taken as a judicial notice since the order of expulsion has not been placed. The authorized person, i.e. the Secretary or President of the Congress Party if had been examined, the matter would have been different.

40. In the instant case, the petitioner has neither produced any expulsion order nor the evidence of the person who has expelled him.

The admission which is claimed on behalf of the petitioner must be an unequivocal admission. The Respondent No.1 has not specifically stated that he has been expelled from the party membership. He has stated in the written statement that he has been expelled on one side but on the other, the same has been recalled. When he was expelled, when it was recalled, are material particulars for the purpose of the present case. In the chief examination, the respondent No.1 has stated that he was not aware about the expulsion but he was suspended and thereafter it was recalled. Similarly in the cross—examination. When this type of evidence is available, that cannot be accepted. The admission must be a legal admission. If the stray admission is made and if it is accepted, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. The respondent who admits the case, he should be asked in his evidence whether he has understood the consequences of such statement. As long as that is not done, the admission of the respondent cannot be accepted as sought to be contended by the petitioner.

41. In this background, in KARAM KAPAHI v. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 753, it has been held that wherever there is a clear admission of facts, in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. In the instant case, it cannot be said that there is clear admission of the case of the Respondent about the expulsion from the membership.

ought to be done, the plaintiff might come to the court at once to have that thing done, without any further delay or expense." At page 689, it is further observed, 'it must, however, be such an admission of facts as would show that the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the order asked for". "The rule was not meant to apply when there is any serious question of law to be argued. But if there is an admission on the pleadings which clearly entities the plaintiff to an order, then the intention was that he should not have to wait, but might at once obtain any order...."

43. In HUGHES v. LONDON, EDINBURG & GLASGOW ASSURANCE CO., (1891)8 TLR 81 (CA), it is held that "judgment ought not to be signed upon admissions in a pleading or an affidavit, unless the admissions were clear and unequivocal, where the other party has made plain admission entitling the former to succeed". This rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of the facts on the face of which, it is impossible for the party making it to succeed.

44. Following the very judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JEEVAN DIESELS 8; ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) & ANOTHER, (2010) 6 SCC 601 has held that the admission must be clear and unambiguous. Admission if unambiguous depends upon the facts of each case, there being no clarity on the nature of admission.

45. In the light of the above, it is clear that unless there is an admission in a clear manner, the same cannot be accepted for the purpose of principle that facts admitted need not be proved. In the instant case, the admissions said to have been made by the first respondent, it is not in clear terms since he has said on one occasion expulsion made and recalled and on the other he was suspended and recalled.

Secondly, the petitioner himself who takes a specific plea that the respondent has admitted that fact, but has not placed strong and believable evidence before this Court. Hence the submission of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has admitted the fact of expulsion cannot be accepted.

46. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Ex.R81—the acknowledgement which is produced and marked on behalf of the respondent No.1, cannot be looked into on the ground that the author of it is not examined and application is not produced. It is submitted, an adverse inference has to be drawn as against the first respondent for withholding the best document and a witness. The petitioner having approached the court is duty bound to establish the pleaded case and cannot depend on the weakness of the respondent. That too in election matters the election petitioner is required to prove critically the pleaded case and judgment cannot be signed on mere surmises and conjectures. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid reasons. It is already mentioned above that non-production of withdrawal order of expulsion by the first respondent, in the face of nomination paper and Form A and B issued to the first respondent, he was a member on the roll of INC and expulsion order must have been withdrawn. Accordingly issue Nos.1 to 3 and 8 are answered.

ISSUE NOs. 4 to 7

47. These issues relate to irregularity in counting of votes and postal ballot papers, petitioner securing more number of votes and improper reception of valid votes by undue influence of the Returning Officer in favour of first respondent. These issues are connected to each other and hence they are dealt with together.

48. It is the case of the petitioner that Control Unit Number is not written or left blank in Form 17C—Part 1 and the Control Unit Number is written in Form No.17C-Part 2 and Control Unit number does not tally between Form 17C—Part 1 and 17C-Part II. The EVMs used on the date of voting have never been counted, which has resulted in improper reception of votes in favour of the first respondent. The

49. It is further submitted that the Returning Officer has admitted and marked the documents without the objection being raised by the first respondent. Likewise the Notes prepared by the counting agents are marked as Ex.P9 to P23 with the objection of the first respondent. It is claimed by the petitioner that respondent No.1 has admitted the said Notes in Para-23 Page No.30 of the written statement. It is claimed that when there is an admission and the authors of the written documents are examined, this court has to accept the Notes and it has to be held that petitioner has secured 498 votes more than that of the first respondent. The petitioner claims the following difference of votes between the petitioner and first respondent.

50. It is further claimed by the petitioner that news item declaring the petitioner as won was shown in the Public TV on 8.5.2013. In this regard, petitioner has examined PW—15 News Reporter and got marked original CD of the said news item at Ex.P33. The respondent No.1 having not cross-examined PW-15, it has to be taken that such news was published in the Public TV and contents of the original CD marked as Ex.P33 as true.

51. On the other hand, the first respondent submitted relating to discrepancies in Form 17A and 17B that the said evidence cannot be looked into because the said materials are without the pleadings and without seeking any amendments to the pleadings. It is submitted, a narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes.

52. With regard to these issues, let me examine the evidence of the witnesses.

53. PW1 has stated in the chief examination with reference to the petition averments. He has deposed relating to the above issues as follows:

"It is true that he has not made any application for recounting. It is true that myself and my counting agents were made efforts for recounting but no written applications were made. It is denied the suggestion that he made a false statement regarding the fact that my counting agents were forcibly sent outside by using police force. I do not know as to whether 10% of the electorates of Malavalli Constituency are illiterate voters who cast their votes in favour of first respondent in 2008 elections though he was a independent candidate. It is true that either myself or any of my counting agents have not made any written complaint to any of the election officers, Observers about the Returning Officer. It is true that counting was continuous and did not stop for announcement and display of counting of each round on the black board.

It is denied the suggestion that till fifteenth round the petitioner was in lead and from sixteenth round onwards the respondent No.1 got the lead. It is true that postal ballots were again counted by the Returning Officer in the presence of the Observer, Petitioner and respondent No.1. I was present at the time of recounting of postal ballots and that was video recorded.

54. PW.2— S. Kambaraj is election agent of the petitioner. He has stated about the process of counting in the Chief examination. His evidence is to the following effect:

were announced on the black board and the notes were made as per exhibit P9 to Exhibit P23, there were some discrepancies.

It is true that I have prepared kExs.P9to P23 and Ex.P24 — tabulation from between 12.20 to 1.20pm. on the date of counting.

By referring Exhibit P24 I state that as per agent count, the petitioner got 498 votes more than the first respondent. I have made oral request to the returning officer for recounting. They have not considered our request. Again I requested at 1.45 p.m. for retabulation that also not considered. In the cross—examination he has stated "Exhibit P9 to Exhibit P23 are not the slips collected from the counting agents on each round". I have denied the suggestion that Exhibit P9 to P23 have been prepared by the election petitioner.

55. PW.3 to PW.14 are the counting agents of the petitioner. They have stated more or less on the same lines. They have stated that there were discrepancies in the votes secured as per the tabulation and votes displayed on the black board.

56. PW.3 has stated in the cross—examination that "I can only remember that 8 to 10 signatures were taken on Form 17C Part—II. but I cannot remember on what rounds signatures were obtained. To the suggestion of signing Forms 9-15, he has stated that I cannot remember. I do not remember as to whether I signed Forms for 16th, 17th and 18th rounds. Exhibit P11 has been prepared by the Election agent and I have not done it. Ex.P11 is a note prepared by me. I have noted from the EVM counting and there was no difference in the votes secured by the first respondent. Even though there was no display of counting after twelfth round, I have recorded the votes secured from the EVM."

57. PW.4 has stated in his cross-examination that "though the round—wise counting was not displayed after twelfth round, it was not difficult for us to record the votes secured, and further, in the rounds recorded by me there was difference."

58. PW.5 has stated in his cross-examination that "I do not remember that I asked the Returning Officer and the election Observer to count the postal ballots first. He was the only counting agent who asked the Returning Officer to count the postal ballots first. I do not find any difference in votes secured by the petitioner and R—l in any of the rounds. Suggestion have been denied that Ex.P13 was not prepared between 12.30 to 1.15 in the counting hall."

59. PW.6 has stated in the cross—examination that "I do not know whether the postal ballots was counted on that day. We were given Form 17—C Part—II for signature of counting agents. I have been given twelve Forms for signature and I have signed all of them. I do not remember up to which round Forms were given and not given. Display in respect of thirteenth to eighteenth rounds of counting were made after 12.30 p.m. Display of twelfth to eighteenth rounds of counting was made at once at 12.30 p.m."

60. PW.7 has stated in his cross—examination that we were given forms on completion of each round. I have signed the Forms in all the sixteen rounds and I do not remember signing Form for the seventeenth round. I did not find any difficulty in recording the votes for non—displaying of votes after twelfth round."

61. PW.8 has stated in the chief—examination that there were no display even for any round of counting either in the black board and also public address system. In the cross- examination PW8 has stated "counting agents were given Form 17—C Part—II and some have not signed. Counting Officers did not enquire about why Form 17—C Part—II has not signed. Votes declared in EVM were noted in white sheets by me. Exhibit P17 is not the slip given by me to Kambaraju. I had not noticed any difference of votes secured by the candidates till the completion of seventeenth round."

62. PW.9 has stated in the cross—examination that "I see Exhibit P18. It is not the chit given by me to Kambaraju. I was not aware about the difference of votes secured by the petitioner and first respondent till the completion of seventeenth round."

63. PW.10 has stated in the cross-examination, that "on each round Kambaraju used to collect votes secured on a chit. I do not know any difference of votes secured by the petitioner and respondent No.1 till the completion of counting of seventeenth round. I noticed the difference of votes only when Kambaraju told me. I do not remember the difference of votes occurred in which round."

64. PW.11 has stated in the cross—examination that "till completion of counting of seventeenth round I did not notice difference of votes secured by petitioner and respondent No.1. I have not noticed the difference of votes till I was told by Kambaraju."

65. PW.12 has stated in the cross—examination that "there was no commotion of difference of votes in any round between any candidate. I was given Form No.17-C Part-II for my signature on each round."

66. PW.13 has admitted in the cross—examination that "I see Exhibit P.22 and it is not the note given by me. Differences of votes were not noticed till the completion of all the rounds. I came to know about the difference of votes only on information given by Kambaraju." 67. PW.14 has stated in the cross—examination that "there was no occasion of interchanging the votes secured. I used to give slip of papers with votes secured by petitioner and respondent No.1 to Kambaraju on each round. Before completion of seventeenth round I had no knowledge of discrepancies or differences of votes secured by petitioner and respondent No.1."

68. PW.15 is the news reporter of Public TV. He has stated about news carried on 8.5.2013 in Public TV that the petitioner had won in the election. Exhibit P.33—compact disc was marked subject to objections by the respondent.

36 about expulsion of first respondent. The said documents were also marked subject to objections by the first respondent.

70. PW.17 is the Project Director, DUDC, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya who is the Returning Officer for the Constituency in question. He has stated in the cross— examination before the commencement of polling, mock poll would be conducted with prior intimation and in front of election agents. They would be permitted to verify, identify the EVMs, Control Unit and Ballot Unit and also as to functioning of EVMs. They demonstrate the functioning of EVMs. After completion of mock poll, whatever entered in the machine is erased and result portion would be sealed with green—strips and thereafter nobody can open it except the candidate. First, counting of postal ballots takes place. Postal ballots were also collected from the central strong room and were taken to counting hall. He has stated presence of election agents and candidates at the counting of postal ballots has also been video recorded. He was there for about 5 to 10 minutes watching of counting of postal ballots and he came to his seat. After about half an hour he asked the staff to bring Control Units. Counting of postal ballot went for about two hours. He has not received any objections at any round complaining with regard to machine number and seal etc, till the completion of the counting process. Control Units were shown to the static. micro observers and counting agents to ensure that the Control Units were not tampered. On pressing the 'result' button the machine display (1) Control Unit Number; (2) Date of polling; and (3) Number of candidates in the fray. Then the votes secured by each candidates is displayed. Random checking is done by the additional counting staff. The entries made after cross—checking would be given to general observers. Further verification of entries in Form No.17—C Part—II with reference to voter statistics and also Form No.17-C Part-I and the same will be transmitted to the Observers. It would be returned back to him in case it is found that there is any mistake. If it is in order, it would be sent to data entry operator. Print out given to him by the data entry operator would again be cross-verified by him with regard to polling station number and votes secured by each candidate and also total number of votes cast in that polling station. That will be given to the observers. It will be initialed by the Observers and again it will be given back to him and he will also put initials to it. Each round result—

sheet would be collected by information officer of Central Media Room and he announces to the public. When this process is taking place, the counting will not be stopped. It is true that there is rule in the Election Manual, till the counting of each round displayed on the black board, next EVM should not be secured for counting. The similar process of counting is followed till it is displayed on the black board on all the rounds. When the result—sheet of eighteenth round would disclose the votes secured in previous seventeen rounds, including the eighteenth round, the votes secured in postal ballots is taken separately. It is true that he has added the votes secured in postal ballots with the total votes secured at eighteenth round. Form No.20 would be taken after completion of eighteenth round and in that Form No.20, the votes secured in the postal ballots is shown.

71. The Election Commissioner of India, by order dated 5th May 2011 has directed the Returning Officer to re—verify the postal ballots, in case, margin of votes secured by first and second leading candidates, is less than the total postal ballots hold. He did not find any difference of votes secured by first and second leading candidates in the postal ballot votes and he also found that there was no variation in the votes secured by all the candidates. Form 20 was given to the candidates and Form 21—C was given to the returned candidate. Form 21—E was sent to the Election Commission of India, District Election Officer and Observer.

72. PW.18—L Narayan, is the Office Secretary of KPCC. He has stated that the first respondent belongs to Congress Party. However, he has stated he is working as Office Secretary and not as a Party Secretary and hence he does not know much about the affairs of the Party. He does not remember whether the first respondent contested from the party in the year 2008. Records pertaining to Party are with the General Secretary.

73. Now let me scan the relevant provisions of the Act relating to these issues.

74. Section 86.3 of the Act deals with power to allow amendment of Election petition. It is permissible for a Party to furnish particulars, even after the period of limitation for filing election has expired, with permission of Court, but no material facts, unless already pleaded, can be permitted to be introduced after the expiry of the period of limitation.

75. Section 86.6 of the Act deals with power to order recounting of ballot papers. It is stated, a democracy runs smooth on the wheels of periodic and pure elections. The verdict of the polls announced by the Returning Officers lead to formation of a Government. A certain amount of stability in the electoral process is essential. If the counting of the ballots are interfered with by too frequent and flippant recount by Courts, a new threat to the certainty of the poll system is introduced through the judicial instrument. Moreover, secrecy of ballot, which is sacrosanct, becomes exposed to the deleterious trying, if recount of votes is made easy. The general reaction, if there is judicial relaxation on this issue, may well be a fresh pressure on luckless candidates, particularly. when the winning margin is only of a few hundred votes, to ask for a recount, looking for a numerical good fortune or Windfall of chance discovery of illegal rejection or reception of ballots. This may lead to dangerous disorientation which invades the democratic order by injecting widespread scope for reopening of declared returns, unless the court restricts recourse to recount to cases of genuine apprehension of miscount or illegality or other compulsions of justice necessitating such a drastic step.

76. Section 86.6.1 of the Act stipulates the following conditions for recounting:

(i) the court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is established;

(ii) the material facts and full particulars have been pleaded stating irregularities in counting of votes;

(iii) a rowing and fishing inquiry should not be directed by way of an order to recount the votes;

(v) secrecy of the ballot should be guarded.

77. Section 87.1 of the Act deals with the trial of Election Petition. It is stated, a trial of an election petition though within the realm of civil law. is akin to trial on a criminal charge.

78. Section 87.3 of the Act deals with the evidence. It is stated there shall be no admission of election petition where there is no evidence on controversies, nor covered by issues and the pleadings. Evidence can be allowed to be led on a plea properly raised and issues framed. No evidence can be allowed to be led relating to allegations about which no issue has been framed. Irrelevant, impermissible and inadmissible evidence cannot be allowed to be brought on record. Evidence adduced in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and stand test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny and should be of such nature leading to an irresistible conclusion or unimpeachable result that the allegations made, have been committed rendering the election void under Section 100 of the Act.

79. Section 97.4 of the Act deals with Election petition alleging irregularities in counting of votes. It states that for purpose of enabling an enquiry that any votes have been improperly cast in favour of any candidate other than the returned candidate or any votes have been improperly refused or rejected in regard to the returned candidate, the election court shall acquire jurisdiction to do so only on the following conditions being satisfied.—

(i) Election petition seeks declaration that election of returned candidate is void on the ground under Section 100(1)(d);

(ii) The election petition seeks a further declaration that any candidate other than returned candidate has been duly elected;

and

(iii) The recrimination petition under Section 97.1 is filed by the returned candidate.

80. Now, let me evaluate the oral evidence and documentary evidence available on record in respect of these issues No.4 to 7 keeping in view the provisions of law mentioned above.

81. The petitioner claims more number of votes in his favour on the basis of the tabulation prepared by the election agent as per Exhibit P.24 based on the notes submitted by the counting agents. The evidence of the petitioner and the counting agents, the part of which is extracted as above, will not repose confidence to base reliance on either the notes prepared by the counting agents or the tabulation prepared by the election agent. Some of the counting agents have disowned the notes which were stated to have been handed over to the election agent. In view of the limitation imposed on the election courts as to the interference with the election results and the materials placed on record by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out grounds for either recounting or to set aside the election of the returned candidate. The Returning Officer has clearly stated the procedure followed in the counting process and he has categorically stated that there is no variation in the number of votes counted either in favour of the petitioner or the first respondent.

82. PW—1 and PW—3 to 14 have admitted that no written complaint is made to the Returning Officer as to the irregularities or discrepancies in counting of votes. If really there is discrepancy and irregularity, nothing prevented the election agent and counting agents to make a written complaint in this regard. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the counting agents as well as the election agent of the petitioner were quite experienced in the matter of election. The election petitioner has failed to bring on record what is that irregularity or discrepancy in the counting process affecting materially the election results. What is required of the election petitioner to bring on record is that irregularity or discrepancy, which has materially affected the election results. Non giving of written complaint will lead to conclusion that there was no irregularity or discrepancy in the counting process materially affecting the election results.

83. It is the claim of the petitioner, based on the tabulation Ex.P24 prepared by the election agent which is again based on the notes prepared by the counting agents, that petitioner secured more number of votes than the first respondent. The petitioner has failed to prove the notes prepared by the counting agents and based on which the tabulation is prepared by the election agent. The evidence of the election agent and counting agents is not cogent and trustworthy so as to place reliance on the same. The Returning Officer has in detail deposed that there is no variation in number of votes either to the petitioner or to the first respondent. There is no irregularity in counting of votes and postal ballot papers. PW-2 to PW—14 have stated that there was no difficulty in recording the counting of votes through EVMs. There is no consistency in the evidence of election agent as well as the counting agents that there was no display of votes on the black board or public display system. Some say there was display and some say there was no display after 12th round.

The election petitioner has stated in the petition itself that the election petitioner was leading up to 16th round. All the counting agents have stated that they came to know the discrepancy only when the election agent told them so. If there was no display of votes, how the election petitioner could come to know his leading up to 16th round is not made clear. It is found in the evidence of the counting agents that there is no possibility of interchanging of votes. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove that there was no display of votes after 12th round and that has materially affected the election result and that the petitioner secured more votes than that of the first respondent.

after going through the said documents, various irregularities were found. However, the petitioner could not amend the election petition in view of the principle "Doctrine of Relation Back". In case the petitioner amended the petition and the amendment was allowed, petitioner could not proceed in view of the settled principle of Doctrine of Relation Back. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332 (supra) and referred to Para 24 & 25. The said judgment deals with amendment of pleadings, which if allowed relates back to date of filing the proceedings and in some cases the court can direct the amendment to come into effect from the date on which the application seeking amendment was made.

85. In the instant case, the amendment application is not made and amendment is not carried out to the election petition. Therefore, the necessary pleadings as to the irregularity are not there for the election petitioner and thereby the election petitioner cannot go beyond the pleadings by leading any amount of evidence. In that view of the matter, the alleged irregularity materials cannot be looked into. As already stated above, nothing in the election petition could be taken as admission thereby it would absolve the petitioner from proving his pleaded case.

86. Will of the people must prevail and courts would be understandably extremely slow to set at naught the will of the people truly and freely exercised. If the courts were to do otherwise, the courts would be pitting their will against the will of the people or countermanding the choice of the people without any object, aim or purpose as held in AZHAR HUSSAIN vs., RAJIV GANDHI reported in AIR 1986 SC 1253. But that does not mean that election court shall not interfere with the election. Where there is a genuine case and where the court comes to the conclusion that election of the returned candidate is thoroughly improper and illegal, the election court is duty bound to interfere with the election as the fair and proper election is the paramount consideration. No such case is made out by the petitioner to grant any of the reliefs prayed for.

87. In the result and for the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the election petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

The security deposit made by the petitioner towards cost is directed to be paid to the first respondent.

JUDGE

ANOOP KUMAR

UNDER SECRETARY

PR-758

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA SC-25

S.N.RAMAKRISHNA

Assistant Chief Electoral Officer

And Ex-Officio Under Secretary to Govt.,

DPAR (Elections.)

ಸಹಕಾರ ಇಲಾಖೆ

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ.441) ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ.,

ನಂ.132, ಕೆ.ಹೆಚ್. ರಸ್ತೆ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-560 027.

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿಯಮ 441) ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ನಡವಳಿಕೆಗಳು

ಹಾಗೂ

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ, 1959ರ ಕಲಂ 101(ಬಿ) ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮಗಳು 1960ರ ನಿಯಮ 38 ಎ (5)ರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ನೀಡಲಾದ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲಾಗದ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ.

ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರು ಶ್ರೀ ಎಂ. ಗಿರೀಶ್ ಕುಮಾರ್, ನಂ: 3896/ಎ, ಹೊಸ ನಂ: 26, 2ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ,

``ಬಿ'' ಬ್ಲಾಕ್, ಸುಬ್ರಮಣ್ಯನಗರ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-21 ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಹೋಲ್ಡರ್ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ದಿ ಜನತಾ ಕೋ-ಅಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 156, 8ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- 55.

ಆದೇಶ

ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ, ದಿ ಜನತಾ ಕೋ-ಅಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 156, 8ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- 55 ಇವರು, ಶ್ರೀ ಎಂ. ಗಿರೀಶ್ ಕುಮಾರ್, ನಂ:3896/ಎ, ಹೊಸ ನಂ:26, 2ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, ``ಬಿ'' ಬ್ಲಾಕ್, ಸುಬ್ರಮಣ್ಯನಗರ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-21 ಇವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಜಂಟಿ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ. 441) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ದಾವೆ ಹೂಡಿ ದಾವಾ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಎ.ಆರ್.ಡಿ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/357/2015-16ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 04.02.2016 ರಂದು ಡಿಕ್ರಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು, ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿ.441) ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳಭಾಗ ೩ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ೪೧ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಎಆರ್ಇ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/745/2015-16 ರಂತೆ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.

ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರಿಂದ ದಿನಾಂಕ 28.08.2018ಕ್ಕೆ ಡ್ರಿಕಿದಾರ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಬರಬೇಕಾದ ಸಾಲದ ಬಾಕಿ ರೂ 37,73,552/- (ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಮೂತ್ತೇಳು ಲಕ್ಷದ ಎಪ್ಪತ್ತಮೂರು ಸಾವಿರದ ಐದು ನೂರ ಐವತ್ತೆರಡು ಮಾತ್ರ) ತದ ನಂತರದ ಅವಧಿಗೆ + ಬಡ್ಡಿ + ಸುಸ್ತಿ ಬಡ್ಡಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಇತರೆ ಖರ್ಚು ವಸೂಲಾತಿಗಾಗಿ, ಸಾಲಗಾರರಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಅಂತಿಮವಾಗಿ ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಹರಾಜು ಮೂಲಕ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 11.07.2018 ರಂದು ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಈ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಹರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಖರೀದಿಸುವವರು ಇಲ್ಲದ ಪ್ರಯುಕ್ತ ಡಿಕ್ರಿದಾರ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದೆಂದು ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಪಕರು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 30.08.2018 ಪತ್ರದ ಮೂಲಕ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ವಿನಂತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮಾರಾಟಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಮತ್ತು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ಮನವಿಯನ್ನು ಪುರಸ್ಕರಿಸಿ, ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ಇದೇ ಆದೇಶದ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 20.09.2018 ರಂದು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮಗಳು 1960ರ ನಿಯಮ 38 ಎ (3)ರನ್ವಯ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಯಿಂದ ನೋಟೀಸ್ ನೀಡಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿದಾರ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸಲು ಬಾಕಿಯಿರುವ ಸಾಲದ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ಈ ನೋಟೀಸ್ ಮುಟ್ಟಿದ ಒಂದು ತಿಂಗಳೊಳಗೆ ಸಂದಾಯ ಮಾಡತಕ್ಕದೆಂದು ಅಥವಾ ಸಾಲದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳವರ ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಠೇವಣಿ ಮಾಡತಕ್ಕದ್ದೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, ತಪ್ಪಿದಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅಮಲ್ಜಾರಿ ಹುಕುಂ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ, ದಿ ಜನತಾ ಕೋ-ಅಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 156, 8ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-55 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಕಲಂ 101 (ಬಿ) ಅನ್ವಯ ಮಾರಾಟವಾಗದ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುವುದೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 20.09.2018 ರಂದು ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಯಿಂದ ನೀಡಲಾದ ನೋಟೀಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ಸಾಲದ ಬಾಕಿಯನ್ನು ತಹಲ್‌ವರೆಗೂ ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನೋಟೀಸಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಸಾಲದ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ಡಿಕ್ರಿದಾರರ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಸಂದಾಯ ಮಾಡಲು/ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳವರ ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಠೇವಣಿ ಮಾಡಲು ವಿಫಲರಾದ ಪ್ರಯುಕ್ತ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಆಧಾರವಾಗಿರುವ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಣಿಸಿರುವ ಬಾಕಿದಾರರ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಹೋಲ್ಡರ್ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ, ದಿ ಜನತಾ ಕೋ-ಅಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 156, 8ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-55 ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಕಲಂ 101 (ಬಿ) ಹಾಗೂ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮ 38 (ಎ) (5)ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಆದೇಶಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿಯಮ 38 ಎ (5)ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂನೆ 8ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲಂ 101 ಬಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಖರೀದಿದಾರರು ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲಾಗದ ಆಸ್ತಿ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ನಮೂನೆ - 8

( ನಿಯಮ 38 ಎ (5) ರಡಿ)

ಕಲಂ 101 ಬಿ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ

ಸಿಇಪಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ/ ಎಆರ್ಇ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/745/2015-16

ಬಿ.ಇ. ಹೊಂಬೇಗೌಡ, ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು (ನಿಯಮ 441) ಮತ್ತು ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಆದ ನಾನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1959 ಕಲಂ 101(ಬಿ) ಅನ್ವಯ ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮಗಳು 1960ರ ನಿಯಮ 38 ಎ(5) ರನ್ವಯ ದತ್ತವಾದ ಅಧಿಕಾರದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ, ದಾವಾ ತೀರ್ಪು ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ. ಎ.ಆರ್.ಡಿ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/357/2015-16 ಮತ್ತು ಸಿ.ಇ.ಪಿ.ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ/ಎಆರ್ಇ/ಯುಬಿಎಫ್/745/2015-16 ರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ಎಂ. ಗಿರೀಶ್‌ಕುಮಾರ್, ನಂ: 3896/ಎ, ಹೊಸ ನಂ: 26, 2ನೇ ಅಡ್ಡರಸ್ತೆ, ``ಬಿ'' ಬ್ಲಾಕ್, ಸುಬ್ರಮಣ್ಯನಗರ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-21 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಹಾಗೂ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಆಧಾರವಾಗಿರುವ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ವಿವರಿಸಿದ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಹರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಖರೀದಿಸುವವರು ಇಲ್ಲದೇ ಮಾರಾಟವಾಗದೆ ಇರುವ ಕಾರಣ ದಿ ಜನತಾ ಕೋ-ಅಪರೇಟಿವ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲಿ., ನಂ: 156, 8ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆ, ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-55 ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಷರತ್ತುಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ನಿಯಮಗಳಿಗೊಳಪಟ್ಟು ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ವಿವರ Property No. BBMP/BDA No. ²⁶, Old No. ³⁸⁹⁶/A, ²nd Cross, Subramanya Nagar, `B' Block, Bengaluru situated in BBMP Ward No 9, (Subramanya Nagar) (PID No. 9-46-26) (New PID No: 066-W0151-32) and measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 24 feet, totally measuring 720 Sqft with Ground floor construction except two shops in the Ground floor the entire First Floor &

ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆಯ ಷರತ್ತುಗಳು

1. ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಸಂದಾಯ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾದ ಸಾಲದ ಬಾಕಿ ಅಸಲು, ಬಡ್ಡಿ, ಸುಸ್ತಿ ಬಡ್ಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರೆ ಖರ್ಚುಗಳನ್ನು ಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸಿದಲ್ಲಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕು ತನಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕವಾಗಿ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಡತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

2. ತೀರ್ಪು ಬಾಕಿದಾರರಿಂದ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ 28.08.2018ಕ್ಕೆ ಬರಬೇಕಾದ ಸಾಲದ ಮೊತ್ತ ರೂ.37,73,552/- (ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಮೂತ್ತೇಳು ಲಕ್ಷದ ಎಪ್ಪತ್ತ ಮೂರು ಸಾವಿರದ ಐದು ನೂರ ಐವತ್ತೆರಡು ಮಾತ್ರ) ಪೂರ್ಣ ತಿರುವಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಈ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾಹಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

3. ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಲಾದ ಆಸ್ತಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮರು ಮಾರಾಟದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕು ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ನಿಯಮ 38 ಎ ರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿನ ವಿಧಿ ವಿಧಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಪಾಲಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

4. ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆಯಾದ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕು ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡುವ ಪೂರ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ಅನುಮತಿ ಪಡೆಯತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

ಈ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ಮುದ್ರೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 19.11.2018ರಂದು ಹೊರಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

PD - 102

ಬಿ.ಇ.ಹೊಂಬೇಗೌಡ

SC - 05

ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿಬಂಧಕರು, (ನಿ.441) ಹಾಗೂ ವಸೂಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಹಕಾರ ಪಟ್ಟಣ

ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳ ಮಹಾಮಂಡಳ ನಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು

INDIAN RAILWAYS

Proforma 10 - 01

Office of the General Manager / Electrical

Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Bengaluru

No. RVNL/SBC/HPT-BAY/Pkg-1

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notice is hereby given to all users of Railway lines and premises situated on the completed section of the under noted section of the Indian Railway that the 25,000 Volt 50 Hz AC. Over head Traction wires will be energized on or after the date specified against the section. On and from the same date the Overhead Traction line shall be treated as "LIVE" at all times and no unauthorized person shall approach or work in the proximity of the said overhead line.

Section :- Virapur–Bellary-Hubli-Vasco-Da-Gama and Toranagallu-Ranjitpura

Date: 31/12/2018

Zone :South Western Railway

INDIAN RAILWAYS

Proforma 10 - 02

INTRODUCTION OF 25 KV AC TRACTION

"WARNING TO ROAD USERS"

It is notified for information of the public that in connection with introduction of 25 KV AC Electric Traction on and from the dates mentioned against the following sections of Indian Railway, height gauges have been erected at all the level crossings with clear height of 4.67 meter above road level with a view to prevent loads of excessive height from coming into contact or dangerous proximity to "LIVE" traction wires.

Section :Virapur–Bellary-Hubli-Vasco-Da-Gama and Toranagallu-Ranjitpura

Date: 31/12/2018

Zone :South Western Railway

Public are hereby, notified to observe the height specified above for the purpose of loading Vehicles and to see that loads carried in road Vehicles do not infringe the height gauges under any circumstances.

The Dangers of a load of excessive height are as follows:

i) Danger to the height gauge and consequent obstruction to the Road as well as the Railway line;

ii) Danger to the materials or equipments carried or the vehicle itself;

iii) Danger of fire and risk of life due to contact with or dangerous proximity to the conductors.

GENERAL MANAGER / ELECTRICAL

RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, BENGALURU.

ಭಾರತೀಯ ರೈಲ್ವೆ

ಪ್ರಧಾನ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಪಕರ ಕಚೇರಿ, ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಿಕಲ್ ರೈಲ್ವೆ ವಿಕಾಸ್ ನಿಗಮ್ ಲಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು

ನಂ.ಆರ್‌ವಿಎನ್ಎಲ್/ಎಸ್‌ಬಿಸಿ/ಹೆಚ್‌ಪಿಟಿ-ಬಿಎವೈ/ಪಿಕೆಜಿ-1, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 17-12-2018

ಪ್ರಸಾವನೆ 10 – 01

ಭಾರತೀಯ ರೈಲ್ವೆಗಳು

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆ

ಭಾರತೀಯ ರೈಲ್ವೆಯ ಸೂಚಿತ ವಲಯದಡಿ ಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಂಡ ವಿಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುವ 25 ಸಾವಿರ ವೋಲ್ಟ್ 50 ಎಚ್.ರhುಡ್ ಎ.ಸಿ.ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ರೈಲ್ವೆ ಮಾರ್ಗದ ಮತ್ತು ಆವರಣದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಬಳಕೆದಾರರಿಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಚನೆ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಿಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರತಿಯಾದ ದಿನಾಂಕದಂದು ಅಥವಾ ನಂತರ ಕಂಬಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಎಳೆಯಲಾದ ತಂತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಪ್ರವಹಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು. ಅಂದಿನಿಂದ ಮತ್ತು ಅದೇ ದಿನಾಂಕದಿಂದ ಕಂಬಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಎಳೆಯಲಾದ ಮಾರ್ಗಗಳನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲೂ `ಜೀವಂತ' ಎಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಅನಧಿಕೃತ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಸದರಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಎಳೆಯಲಾದ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಮಾರ್ಗಗಳ ಸಮೀಪ ಸುಳಿಯುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ ಅಥವಾ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ.

ವಿಭಾಗ : ವೀರಾಪುರ್-ಬಳ್ಳಾರಿ-ಹುಬ್ಬಳ್ಳಿ - ವಾಸ್ಕೊ-ಡಾ-ಗಾಮಾ ಮತ್ತು ತೋರಣಗಲ್-ರಂಜಿತ್‌ಪುರ

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 31/12/2018, ವಲಯ: ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ರೈಲ್ವೆಭಾಗ ೩ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜನವರಿ ೩, ೨೦೧೯ ೪೩

ಭಾರತೀಯ ರೈಲ್ವೆಗಳು

ಪ್ರಸಾವನೆ 10 – 02

25 ಕೆವಿ ಎಸಿ ಟ್ರ್ಯಾಕ್ಶನ್ ಪರಿಚಯ

``ರಸ್ತೆ ಬಳಕೆದಾರರಿಗೆ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆ''

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಾಗಿ ಅಧಿಸೂಚಿಸುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ, ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಎತ್ತರದ ಭಾರವಿರುವ ವಾಹನ `ಜೀವಂತ' ತಂತಿಗಳ ಸಂಪರ್ಕಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುವ ಅಥವಾ ಎಳೆದ ತಂತಿಗಳ ಅಪಾಯಕಾರಿ ಸಾಮೀಪ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುವುದನ್ನು ತಡೆಗಟ್ಟುವ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಭಾರತೀಯ ರೈಲ್ವೆಯ ಈ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ವಿಭಾಗಗಳ ಪ್ರತಿಯಾಗಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಲಾದ ದಿನಾಂಕಗಳಂದು ಮತ್ತು ದಿನಾಂಕದಿಂದ 25 ಕೆ.ವಿ. ಎ.ಸಿ. ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್ ತಂತಿಗಳ ಎತ್ತರ ಮಾಪಕಗಳನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲ ರೈಲು ಹಳಿ ದಾಟುವ ಸ್ಥಳ (ಲೆವೆಲ್ ಕ್ರಾಸಿಂಗ್)ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ರಸ್ತೆ ಮಟ್ಟದಿಂದ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟ ಎತ್ತರವಾದ 4.67 ಮೀಟರ್‌ಗಳಷ್ಟು ಮೇಲಕ್ಕೆ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು.

ವಿಭಾಗ : ವೀರಾಪುರ್-ಬಳ್ಳಾರಿ-ಹುಬ್ಬಳ್ಳಿ - ವಾಸ್ಕೊ-ಡಾ-ಗಾಮಾ ಮತ್ತು ತೋರಣಗಲ್-ರಂಜಿತ್‌ಪುರ

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 31/12/2018, ವಲಯ: ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ರೈಲ್ವೆ

ವಾಹನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸರಕು ತುಂಬುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸಲಾದ ಎತ್ತರವನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮತ್ತು ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಗುವ ವಾಹನಗಳ ಭಾರವು ಯಾವುದೇ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶದಲ್ಲೂ ಎತ್ತರದ ಮಾಪಕದ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗದಂತೆ ನೋಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಿಳಿಯಪಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ವಿಪರೀತ ಎತ್ತರದ ಭಾರದಿಂದಾಗುವ ಅಪಾಯಗಳು ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತಿವೆ:

i) ಎತ್ತರದ ಮಾಪಕಕ್ಕೆ ಅಪಾಯ ಮತ್ತು ರಸ್ತೆಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ರೈಲ್ವೆ ಮಾರ್ಗಕ್ಕೆ ಪದೇ ಪದೇ ಅಡಚಣೆ; ii) ಸಾಗಿಸಲಾಗುವ ಸರಕು ಅಥವಾ ಸಲಕರಣೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಅಥವಾ ಸ್ವತಃ ವಾಹನಗಳಿಗೇ ಅಪಾಯ; iii) ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಪ್ರವಹಿಸುವ ತಂತಿಯ ಸಾಮಿಪ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುವ ಅಪಾಯ ಮತ್ತು ತಾಗಿದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಗ್ನಿ ಅನಾಹುತದ ಅಪಾಯ ಮತ್ತು ಜೀವಕ್ಕೆ ಅಪಾಯ.

PD – 103

ಪ್ರಧಾನ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಪಕರು / ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರೀಕಲ್

SC - 05

ರೈಲ್ವೆ ವಿಕಾಸ್ ನಿಗಮ್ ಲಿ., ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, OLD K.G.I.D BLDG., BENGALURU

NOTIFICATION NO. 3 /2018, Dated : 26.11.2018

As per Rule 8 of "The Karnataka State Bar Council (election of Chairman & Vice Chairman) Rules, 1978", it is declared that the following Members of the Bar Council have been elected unopposed to the Office of the Chairman & Vice Chairman.

BASAVARAJ HUDEDAGADDI

RETURNING OFFICER

KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL

BENGALURU

KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, OLD K.G.I.D.BLDG., BENGALURU

NOTIFICATION NO. 4/2018, DATED : 30.11.2018

BASAVARAJ HUDEDAGADDI

SECRETARY

Under Section 4 (1) ( c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Rule 2, Part II, Chapter I of the Bar Council of India Rules (election of Member, Bar Council of India) SHRI. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, Member, No. 118, II Floor, Cubbonpet Main Road, Avenue Road Cross, Bengaluru -2 (Ph. No. ® 080 – 2542 0222, Mbl : 9845470489) has been declared elected as Member of the Bar Council of India on 30TH November, 2018.

BASAVARAJ HUDEDAGADDI

PD – 104

SECRETARY

ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣಾಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಗ್ರಾಅಪ 339 ಸೇಶಿಕಾ 2018 (1), ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 31.12.2018

ವಿಷಯ: ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್ ವೃಂದದ ಕರಡು ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 01.12.2018 ರಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ.

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ: ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಗ್ರಾಅಪ 205 ಸೇಶಿಕಾ 2014, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 09.05.2017

ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿತ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಗ್ರಾಅಪ 205 ಸೇಶಿಕಾ 2014, ದಿನಾಂಕ 09.05.2017ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಂದಿನ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ / ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮಂಡಳಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಪರಿಷತ್ತುಗಳ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ / ನೌಕರರ ಸೇವೆಯನ್ನು ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಸೇವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಲೀನಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿ ವಿಲೀನಗೊಂಡ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ / ನೌಕರರು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಸೇವೆಗಳು (ಹಿಂದಿನ ಡಿ.ಆರ್.ಡಿ.ಎಸ್., ಟಿ.ಡಿ.ಬಿ. ಮತ್ತು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಪರಿಷತ್ ನೌಕರರ ವಿಲೀನಾತಿ) (ವಿಶೇಷ) ನಿಯಮಗಳು 2016ರ ನಿಯಮಗಳ ನಿಯಮ-4ರ ಅನುಸಾರ ನಿಗಿದಿಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಪಿಂಚಣಿ ವಂತಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಆದೇಶದ ಅನುಸಾರ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್ ವೃಂದದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಟ್ಟು 54 ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್‌ಗಳ ಸೇವೆಯನ್ನು ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಸೇವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಲೀನಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಈ ಪೈಕಿ 18 ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್‌ಗಳು ಪಿಂಚಣಿ ವಂತಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಇವರುಗಳ ಹೆಸರನ್ನು ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಉಳಿದ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್‌ಗಳು ಪಿಂಚಣಿ ವಂತಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ ಅವರುಗಳ ಹೆಸರುಗಳನ್ನು ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುವುದು.

ಮುಂದುವರೆದು, ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಗೆ ವಿಶೇಷ ನೇಮಕಾತಿ ನಿಯಮಗಳಡಿ ನೇಮಕಾತಿ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್‌ಗಳ ಹೆಸರುಗಳನ್ನು ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್‌ಗಳ ತಾತ್ಕಾಲಿಕ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ :01.12.2018ರಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಗೆ ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿರುವ ಅನುಬಂಧದಲ್ಲಿರುವಂತೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಈ ತಾತ್ಕಾಲಿಕ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಬಾದಿತರಾಗುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆ/ ಸಲಹೆ ಏನಾದರೂ ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಿದ 15 ದಿವಸಗಳೊಳಗಾಗಿ ಸೂಕ್ತ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ, ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣಾಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಲಾಖೆ, ಬಹುಮಹಡಿ ಕಟ್ಟಡ, 3ನೇ ಮಹಡಿ, ಡಾ: ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್ ವೀಧಿ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರಿಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು. ನಿಗದಿತ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆ / ಸಲಹೆ ಬಾರದಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಿಮ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲು ಕ್ರಮವಹಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆದೇಶಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ

ಎಸ್. ರಂಗನಗೌಡ

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅದೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ(ಸೇವೆಗಳು-ಎ),

ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣಾಬಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪಂ.ರಾಜ್ ಇಲಾಖೆ.

ಅನುಬಂಧ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಗ್ರಾಅಪ 339 ಸೇಶಿಕಾ 2018 (1), ದಿನಾಂಕ : 31.12.2018ಕ್ಕೆ

P.R. 01

ಎಸ್. ರಂಗನಗೌಡ

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅದೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ(ಸೇವೆಗಳು-ಎ), SC-²⁰⁰

ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣಾಬಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪಂ.ರಾಜ್ ಇಲಾಖೆ.

ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣಾಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಗ್ರಾಅಪ 339 ಸೇಶಿಕಾ 2018 (2), ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 31.12.2018

ವಿಷಯ: ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಹೈದ್ರಾಬಾದ್ – ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವೃಂದದ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್ ವೃಂದದ ಕರಡು ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 01.12.2018ರಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ.

ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಗೆ 2015ನೇ ಸಾಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶೇಷ ನೇಮಕಾತಿ ನಿಯಮಗಳಡಿ ಹೈದ್ರಾಬಾದ್ - ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿಯಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೇಮಕಾತಿ ಹೊಂದಿ ಕೆಲಸ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್‌ಗಳ ತಾತ್ಕಾಲಿಕ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ 01.12.2018ರಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಗೆ ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿರುವ ಅನುಬಂಧದಲ್ಲಿರುವಂತೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಈ ತಾತ್ಕಾಲಿಕ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಬಾಧಿತರಾಗುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆ/ ಸಲಹೆ ಏನಾದರೂ ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಿದ 15 ದಿವಸಗಳೊಳಗಾಗಿ ಸೂಕ್ತ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ, ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣಾಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಲಾಖೆ, ಬಹುಮಹಡಿ ಕಟ್ಟಡ, 3ನೇ ಮಹಡಿ, ಡಾ: ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್ ವೀಧಿ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇವರಿಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು. ನಿಗದಿತ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಣೆ / ಸಲಹೆ ಬಾರದಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಿಮ ಜೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲು ಕ್ರಮವಹಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆದೇಶಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ

ಎಸ್. ರಂಗನಗೌಡ

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅದೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ(ಸೇವೆಗಳು-ಎ),

ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣಾಬಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪಂ.ರಾಜ್ ಇಲಾಖೆ.

ಅನುಬಂಧ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಗ್ರಾಅಪ 339 ಸೇಶಿಕಾ 2018 (2) ದಿನಾಂಕ : 31.12.2018ಕ್ಕೆ

ದಿನಾಂಕ: 01.12.2018 ರಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಪಂಚಾಯತ್ ರಾಜ್ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಹೈದ್ರಾಬಾದ್ – ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿಯ ಕಿರಿಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್ ವೃಂದದ ಕರಡು ಜೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿ