K C Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka - Citation 1195910 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE28h OCTOBER, 2014 :BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2442/2014 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.2576/2014, 3011/2014, 3012/2014, 3052/2014, 2522/2014, 2503/2014, 2523/2014, 3263/2014, 2577/2014, 3054/2014, 3053/2014 AND29902014 IN CRL.P.2442/2014 BETWEEN K.C. RAMESH, S/O K.C.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, OCC: MEMBER PATTANA PANCHAYAT, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST. CHITRADURGA- 577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01. 2 2. B.S.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE, "ANJANADRI", K.H.SIDDARAMAPPA EXTN., HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATESH P. DALWAI FOR R1 SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED252.2014 AND FIR DATED13.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPECTIVELY. ***** IN CRL.P.2576/2014 BETWEEN MANJUNATH SWAMY, S/O V.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT48YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING, SUB-DIVISION, HOLALKERE, DIST:CHITRADURGA- 577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 3 HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

2. B.S.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE, "ANJANADRI", K.H.SIDDARAMAPPA EXTN., HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATESH P. DALWAI FOR R1 SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED252.2014 AND FIR DATED13.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPECTIVELY. ***** IN CRL.P.3011/2014 BETWEEN K.C.PUROSHOTHAM, S/O K.C.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT45YEARS, OCC: I GRADE CONTRACTOR, R/O. YADAVA STREET, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, 4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

ORDER

DATED252.2014 PASSED IN PCR NO.1/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND FIR NO.2/2014 DATED13.2014 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. ***** IN CRL.P.3012/2014 BETWEEN SRI B.M.S. VEERAIAH, S/O S.S.RUDRAIAH, AGED60YEARS, OCC:CHIEF OFFICER TMC, R/O:HOLALKERE, HOLALKERE TALUK, DIST:CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 5 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

ORDER

DATED252.2014 PASSED IN PCR NO.1/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND FIR NO.2/2014 DATED13.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. ***** IN CRL.P.3052/2014 BETWEEN SRI SHANTAPPA, S/O B. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT55YEARS, OCC: PRESENTLY WORKING AS, RESIDENT ENGINEER, VTU, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM-590 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 6 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

ORDER

DATED2502.2014 PASSED IN PCR NO.01/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND FIR NO.02/2014 DATED0103.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. ***** IN CRL.P.2522/2014 BETWEEN K.C.RAMESH, S/O K.C. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, OCC:MEMBER PATTANA PANCHAYAT, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 7 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

2. B.S. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE, "ANJANADRI", K.H.SIDDARAMAPPA EXTN, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST: CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, SPL. PP FOR R1, SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED1003/2014 AND FIR DATED1803.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN PCR NO.2/14 AND RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPECTIVELY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ***** IN CRL.P.2503/2014 BETWEEN S. RAJESHEKAR, S/O LATE S. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, OCC:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BELLARY-583 101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 8 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

ORDER

DATED:25.2.14 AND FIR DATED:1.3.14 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN PCR NO.1/14 AND RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPECTIVELY. ***** IN CRL.P.2523/2014 BETWEEN S. RAJESHEKAR, S/O LATE S. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, OCC:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, DISTRICT COMISSIONER OFFICE, BELLARY-583 101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 9 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

ORDER

DATED103.2014 IN PCR NO.2/2014 AND FIR DATED183.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPECTIVELY. ***** IN CRL.P.3263/2014 BETWEEN K.C.PURUSHOTHAMA, S/O K.C.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT45YEARS, OCC:

1. T GRADE CONTRACTOR, R/O: YADAVA STREET, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST: CHITRADURG-577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 10 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

ORDER

DATED:10.3.14 PASSED IN PCR NO.2/14 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND FIR NO.3/14 DATED:18.3.14 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. ***** IN CRL.P.2577/2014 BETWEEN MANJUNATH SWAMY, S/O V. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT48YEARS, OCC:ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, HOLALKERE, DIST:CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 11 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA ,CHITRADURGA, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 2. B.S.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE, "ANJANADRI", K.H.SIDDARAMAPPA EXTN, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST:CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, SPL. PP FOR R1, SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED103.2014 AND FIR DATED183.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPECTIVELY. ***** IN CRL.P.3054/2014 BETWEEN SRI B.M.S VEERAIAH, S/O S.S.RUDRAIAH, AGED60YEARS, OCC:CHIEF OFFICER TMC, R/O HOLALKERE, HOLALERE. TALUK, DIST:CHITRADURAGA-577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 12 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

2. B.S.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE, "ANJANADRI", AGE40YEARS K.H.SIDDARAMAPPA EXTN, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST:CHITRADURGA -577 526. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, SPL. PP FOR R1, SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED TO QUASH THE1003.2014 PASSED IN PCR NO.02/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND FIR NO.03/2014 DATED1803.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. ***** IN CRL.P.3053/2014 BETWEEN SRI. SHANTAPPA, S/O B.CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT55YEARS, OCC: PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESIDENT ENGINEER, VTU, BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM- 590 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 13 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 01.

2. B.S.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE, "ANJANADRI", AGE40YEARS, K.H. SIDDARAMAPPA EXTN., HOLALKERE VILLAGE DIST: CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, SPL. PP FOR R1, SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED103.2014 PASSED IN PCR NO.02/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND FIR NO.03/2014 DATED1803.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. SESSIONS DISTRICT AND ***** IN CRL.P.2990/2014 BETWEEN DINESH KUMAR.B.C, S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PATTANA PANCHAYAT HOLALKERE, R/O HOLALKERE TOWN, DIST:CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.M. CHANDRASHEKHARA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MALIPATIL.P.S, ADVOCATE) 14 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA, CHITRDURGA, REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 2. B.S. PRABHAKAR ADVOCATE, "ANJANADRI" K.H.SIDDARAMAPPA EXTN, HOLALKERE VILLAGE, DIST:CHITRADURGA-577 526. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, SPL. PP FOR R1, SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED103.2014 AND FIR DATED183.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA AND RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPECTIVELY. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS AFTER HEARING, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR

ORDER

S ON169.2014, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDER

’ THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

15. COMMON

ORDER

In all the above criminal petitions, common question of facts and law are involved. Therefore, all the criminal petitions are taken up together for disposal and a common order is passed in order to avoid repetition of facts, as well the legal aspects.

2. Criminal Petition Nos.3012/14, 3011/2014, 2503/2014, 2576/2014, 3052/2014 and 2442/2014 have been filed by petitioners/A1 to A6 respectively against the orders in PCR No.1/2014 dated; 25-2-2014 (I Batch of criminal petitions) and Criminal Petition Nos.3054/2014, 2577/2014, 2523/2014, 3053/2014, 2990/2014, 3263/2014 and 2522/2014 have been filed by petitioners/A1 to A7 against the orders passed in PCR No.2/2014 dated;10-3-2014 (II Batch of criminal petitions) on the file of the Principal Sessions and Special Judge for Lokayuktha cases at Chitradurga. 16 3. After appearance of the respondents before this Court, they have filed their statement of objections. 3.1 I would like to refer the ranks of the parties, as per their ranks before the Trial Court in PCR Nos.1/2014 and 2/2014 for convenience.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the first respondent – State and Lokayuktha Police. The second respondent has not submitted any oral arguments in this regard.

5. Before adverting to the legal questions raised before this Court, I feel it is just and necessary to bear in mind few factual aspects, which gave raise to filing of these petitions.

6. A person by name Sri B.S. Prabhakar, complainant before the Trial Court, claiming himself to be an RTI activist and also practicing Advocate having lot of concern towards the society, in order to eradicate 17 the corruption as far as possible, has filed the complaints before the Trial Court against the accused persons (petitioners herein). It is specifically alleged in PCR No.1/2014 that some of the accused persons i.e., Accused No 1, A3 to A5 are the public servants working in different departments, A2 and A6 are brothers each other, A6 is the former Pattan Panchayath Member. A1 is the Class-I contractor. They all joined their hands together in order to mis-appropriate the funds of the Pattana Panchayath in connection with some contract work. It is specifically alleged that in the year 2008-09 under SFC scheme package No.2, the Government has released lot of money for the purpose of construction of shops near the Bus stand at Holalkere in Chitradurga District. There are specific guidelines as to how the said amount has to be utilized and how the said construction work has to be done and completed. It is alleged that without following the guidelines and also by means of mis-using of the funds, by creating false 18 documents and reports cheated the Government and mis-appropriated large amount of funds released, to an extent of Rs.9,15,024/- which was released against the quality construction to be done, but the accused persons without doing any construction work, cheated the Government, public at large and thereby caused a severe loss to the Government. Therefore, the complainant approached the court for taking appropriate action u/s.13 (1) (b) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also u/s.120, 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 477A read with Section 149 of IPC. So far it relates to this complaint, the complainant has issued requisition letter to Chief Secretary to the Government seeking sanction under section 19 of Prevention of corruption Act 1988 and under section 197 of Cr.P.C., on 23-10-2013, and filed the complaint on 25-2-2014.

7. So far as it relates to PCR No.2/2014 is concerned, the same complainant has also filed another 19 complaint against the accused persons who are the petitioners in the second batch of petitions. In the said case, it is stated that A1 to A4 are the public servants, and A5 to A7 are the contractors, member of Pattana Panchayath. It is specifically contended that on 28.1.2010 for the year 2009-10 under the scheme SFC (Muktha Nidhi) package No.2, the Government has granted sufficient money for the purpose of providing electricity supply and for renovation of the vegetable and flower market at Holalkere Town in Chitradurga District. In this connection also, there were sufficient guidelines and also directions to the Public servants who are indulged in the construction of the said work. A1 to A4, who are Public servants with active collusion with A5 to A7 have floated the said guidelines and they have not utilized the said funds properly and it is alleged that they have caused heavy loss to the extent of Rs.13,15,000/- to the Government by misappropriating the said amount. Therefore, in the said case also, the 20 complainant has requested the Special Court (Trial Court) to take action for the offences under the above said provisions as claimed in PCR No.1/2014. So far it relates to this complaint, the complainant has issued requisition letter to Chief Secretary to the Government seeking sanction under section 19 of Prevention of corruption Act 1988, and under section 197 of Cr.P.C. on 21-12-2013, and filed the complaint on 07-3-2014.

8. In the complaint itself, the complainant has categorically stated that to issue notice u/s.19 of Prevention of Corruption Act and also u/s.197 of Cr.PC seeking sanction from the Government to prosecute the accused persons in the above said complaints. He wrote a letter in the nature of request for grant of sanction to the Chief Secretary to the Government and after giving sufficient time, as he did not receive any reply from the Government of Karnataka; he filed the complaints before the Court. Therefore, he has specifically stated that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 21 Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC1964 as the Government has neither replied nor granted the sanction order, on the basis of the deemed sanction, the complainant has filed the above said two complaints.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the above said two batches of criminal petitions concentrated on two important aspects which are: (1) The complaints have been filed without a valid sanction order accorded by the competent authority and the decision relied upon by the complainant (Dr. Subramaniayan Swamy’s Vs Dr Manmohan Singh) cannot be made use of, for to infer a deemed sanction to prosecute the petitioners. (2) The complainant has no locus- standi to file any complaint before the court.

10. Elaborating his arguments, Sri Chandrasekhar learned Senior Counsel contended that in Dr. 22 Subramanian’s case relied upon by the complainant, nowhere it states that it is a statute to be followed by the Government or by any courts in India, so as to consider any sort of deemed sanction u/s.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They are only guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also an advice to the Government to re-structure Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, so as to amend the said provisions. Therefore, such inference cannot be drawn by the complainant to file the complaints. The learned counsel also contended that the complainant has no locus-standi to file any Pvt. Complaint in this regard. Even on perusal of the grounds urged in the petition except this legal point, no other grounds are urged before this Court on facts.

11. The sum and substance of the averments made in the statement of objections filed by respondents and as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the first respondent are that when the 23 Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated some guidelines, every Government Servant who is in the helm of affairs has to adhere to the said guidelines till any law is made to that effect. Otherwise, no purpose would be served in framing such guidelines. He drawn my attention to the case of Subramanian Swami’s case cited by the complainant, submitted that in the said case also, the court has clarified that, it can be treated as a deemed sanction, till the Government makes any statutory amendment to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

12. In the above said backdrop, the points that would arise for consideration of this court are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has any locus standi to file any private complaint against the petitioners.

2. Whether the non-issuance of sanction Order by the Government in spite of requisition to the Government within 24 specific period as mentioned in Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s case, can be treated as a deemed sanction?. Regarding Point No.1:

13. This particular point raised in this petition is no longer a res-integra. It is now well settled principles of law with regard to the maintainability of the complaint by a private person, who is interested in safeguarding the interest of the public at large. It is virtually a pro-bono litigation lodged by the complainant in this case, who claimed to be a person interested in safeguarding the interest of the society. It is well-settled by catena of rulings of the Apex Court that anyone can set the criminal law into motion. In a case law reported in A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriinivas Naik and another reported in 1984(2) SCC500wherein the Apex Court has held at Para-6 in the following manner. “It is a well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that any one can set or 25 put the criminal law into motion except when the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to the court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision.” 14. In another ruling as already noted above in Subramanian Swamy’s case cited supra, the Apex Court has held thus:- “ there is no restriction on a private citizen filing a private complaint against a public servant-Court is also not barred from taking cognizance of offence by relying on incriminating 26 material collected by private citizen- Locus standi of a private citizen is therefore not excluded-Private citizen’s right to file complaint against public servant, and to obtain sanction for prosecuting public servant flows from rule of law (per Ganguly, J., supplementing)- Access to justice is hallmark of Indian constitutional scheme- Freedom of a private citizen to proceed against a corrupt public servant cannot therefore be restricted- On facts held; Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Law Ministry wrongly scuttled appellant private citizen’s move to prosecute a Union Cabinet Minister, by taking an untenable plea that CBI was already conducting investigation in regard to the same allegations. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx -Lastly, held, Private party seeking sanction must be informed of the decision on sanction application so as to enable it to avail appropriate remedy if not satisfied with decision.” 27 15. In view of the above said rulings, it is crystal clear that any one can move the criminal court unless any contra intention is expressed by the Special Statute. This general principal, which has a universal application is based on a policy that, an offence, act or omission may be punishable under any penal law for the time being in force is not merely an offence committed in relation to a person but, it is an offence against the society. In order to protect the society and also for the peaceful development of the society, it is the social obligation of each and every citizen of the Country, to act as a Watch Dog in order to protect the interest of the other citizens of the country.

16. As could be seen from the 1988 P.C. Act there is absolutely no contra provision or contra view in any of the provisions expressed, restraining any private individual from filing any complaint against the public servant bringing it to the knowledge of the court the 28 offence committed by the said person under the P.C. Act. Therefore, the arguments addressed by the learned counsel in this regard do not hold any water. Hence, this point has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the complainant has got a right to file complaint and such complaint is very well maintainable under the law. Regarding Point No.2 17. Before adverting to answer this point, it is just and necessary to have a brief factual matrix of this case so far it relates to the Sanction order to Prosecute and the notice issued by the complainant to the Government of Karnataka through the Chief Secretary to the Government seeking sanction to prosecute the accused persons in the above said cases. In both the cases, the complainant has addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary not only seeking sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act but also under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The 29 said letter is in the vernacular (in Kannada Language) and it is worthwhile to extract the said letter as follows:- ““““EªÀjUÉ, EªÀjUÉ, EªÀjUÉ, EªÀjUÉ, ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ, «zsÁ£À ¸ËzsÀ, «zsÁ£À ¸ËzsÀ, «zsÁ£À ¸ËzsÀ, «zsÁ£À ¸ËzsÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ----560 001. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 560 001. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 560 001. 560 001. PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: (1) ©.JA.J¸ï. «ÃgÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÀlÖt «µÀAiÀÄ: (1) ©.JA.J¸ï. «ÃgÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÀlÖt «µÀAiÀÄ: (1) ©.JA.J¸ï. «ÃgÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÀlÖt «µÀAiÀÄ: (1) ©.JA.J¸ï. «ÃgÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, (2) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ gÁd±ÉÃRgï JEE, rAiÀÄÄr¹, av (2) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ gÁd±ÉÃRgï JEE, rAiÀÄÄr¹, avÀæzÀÄUÀð, ÀæzÀÄUÀð, (2) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ gÁd±ÉÃRgï JEE, rAiÀÄÄr¹, av (2) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ gÁd±ÉÃRgï JEE, rAiÀÄÄr¹, av ÀæzÀÄUÀð, ÀæzÀÄUÀð, (3) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä JE, ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ (3) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä JE, ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ (3) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä JE, ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ (3) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä JE, ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, (4) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ±ÁAvÀ¥Àà, Chief Co-Ordinator, (4) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ±ÁAvÀ¥Àà, (4) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ±ÁAvÀ¥Àà, (4) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ±ÁAvÀ¥Àà, Third Party Inspection Team For Urban Local Bodies, Chitradurga Dist., (5) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ PÉ.¹. ¥ÀÄgÀÄµÉÆÃvÀÛªÀÄ, ªÉÆzÀ® zÀeÉð (5) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ PÉ.¹. ¥ÀÄgÀÄµÉÆÃvÀÛªÀÄ, ªÉÆzÀ® zÀeÉð (5) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ PÉ.¹. ¥ÀÄgÀÄµÉÆÃvÀÛªÀÄ, ªÉÆzÀ® zÀeÉð (5) ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ PÉ.¹. ¥ÀÄgÀÄµÉÆÃvÀÛªÀÄ, ªÉÆzÀ® zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄ¹Ã¢ gÉÆÃqï, ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè. Ä, ªÀÄ¹Ã¢ gÉÆÃqï, ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè. UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀ Ä, ªÀÄ¹Ã¢ gÉÆÃqï, ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè. Ä, ªÀÄ¹Ã¢ gÉÆÃqï, ºÉÆ¼À¯ÉÌgÉ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197À CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197À CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197À CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197À CrAiÀÄ°è «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä (Previous Sanction «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä ( «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä ( «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä ( for Prosecution) ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÄgÁw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ) ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÄgÁw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ) ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÄgÁw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ) ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÄgÁw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ §UÉÎ§UÉÎ§UÉÎ§UÉÎ. . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀ ºÉÆuÉUÁjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆuÉUÁjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆuÉUÁjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆuÉUÁjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀvÀðªPÀvÀðªPÀvÀðªPÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀÄªÀ ÀåzÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀÄªÀ ÀåzÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀÄªÀ ÀåzÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀÄªÀ ºÉÆuÉUÁjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀæ.¸ÀA. ºÉÆuÉUÁjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀæ.¸ÀA. ºÉÆuÉUÁjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀæ.¸ÀA. ºÉÆuÉUÁjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀæ.¸ÀA. 30 LzÀgÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ LzÀgÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ LzÀgÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ LzÀgÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J®ègÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J®ègÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J®ègÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J®ègÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ¢ :

17. 06.2010 zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ¢ :

17. 06.2010 gÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀÄªÀ C¯ÁàªÀ¢ü mÉAqÀgï gÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀÄªÀ C¯ÁàªÀ¢ü mÉAqÀgï gÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀÄªÀ C¯ÁàªÀ¢ü mÉAqÀgï gÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀÄªÀ C¯ÁàªÀ¢ü mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæPÀluÉ, ¢ :

16. 08.2010 gÀ°è ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CVæÃªÉÄAmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ, ¢ :

16. 08.2010 gÀ°è ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CVæÃªÉÄAmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢ :

05. 01.2011 gÀ°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ 2008 :

05. 01.2011 gÀ°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ 2008---- :

05. :

05. 01.2011 gÀ°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ 2008 01.2011 gÀ°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ 2008 09£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀir ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë 09£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀir ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë 09£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀir ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë 09£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀir ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è CxÀªÁ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è CxÀªÁ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è CxÀªÁ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è CxÀªÁ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥À AZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥À ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥À AZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉ AZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024 £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024----00 00 00 00 £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024 £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024 (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. (C) F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À LzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ MAzÀ£ÉÃ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ (C) F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À LzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ MAzÀ£ÉÃ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ (C) F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À LzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ MAzÀ£ÉÃ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ (C) F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À LzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ MAzÀ£ÉÃ zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ mÉAqÀgï £À°è MAzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ mÉAqÀgï £À°è MAzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ º ÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ mÉAqÀgï £À°è MAzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ º mÉAqÀgï £À°è MAzÀ£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ º ÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CVæªÉÄAmï £À°ègÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CVæªÉÄAmï £À°ègÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CVæªÉÄAmï £À°ègÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CVæªÉÄAmï £À°ègÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉÃjzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉÃjzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉÃjzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀivÀÄÛ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀivÀÄÛ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀivÀÄÛ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀivÀÄÛ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ PÁªÀÄUÁj £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß 31 ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄÄ PÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄÄ ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄÄ PÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À PÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ F2ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ F2ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ F2ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ CAzÀgÉ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ CAzÀgÉ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ CAzÀgÉ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ CAzÀgÉ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåPÉÛUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåPÉÛUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåPÉÛUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåPÉÛUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄzÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄzÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ¢AzÀ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄzÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄzÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ DVAzÁUÉÎ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DVAzÁUÉÎ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DVAzÁUÉÎ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DVAzÁUÉÎ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj CzÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj CzÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj CzÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ¤UÉ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß º ÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß º ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß º ÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ PÁªÀÄUÁj mÉAqÀgï£À°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ PÁªÀÄUÁj mÉAqÀgï£À°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ PÁªÀÄUÁj mÉAqÀgï£À°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ PÁªÀÄUÁj mÉAqÀgï£À°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CVæªÉÄAmï CVæªÉÄAmï CVæªÉÄAmï CVæªÉÄAmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ½UÀ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ½UÀ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ½UÀ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ½UÀ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀÄª À PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀÄª F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀÄª À PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. À PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

4. 4.

4. Package No.2. 2008 2. 2008----09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ 2. 2008 2. 2008 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ :

17. 06.2010 gÀAzÀÄ C¯ÁáªÀ¢ü mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ :

17. 06.2010 gÀAzÀÄ C¯ÁáªÀ¢ü mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÁÝgÉ. ºÉÆgÀr¹zÁÝgÉ. ºÉÆgÀr¹zÁÝgÉ. ºÉÆgÀr¹zÁÝgÉ.

5. C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ MAzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸ÀÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 5. C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ MAzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸ÀÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 5. C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ MAzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸ÀÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 5. C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ MAzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸ÀÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ :

16. 08.2010 gÀAzÀÄ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ :

16. 08.2010 gÀAzÀÄ MAzÀÄ CVæªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MAzÀÄ CVæªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MAzÀÄ CVæªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MAzÀÄ CVæªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

6. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 2£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ : §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï CPÀÌ 6. F £ÉÆÃn Ã¹£À 1 jAzÀ 2£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ : §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï CPÀÌ---- 6. F £ÉÆÃn 6. F £ÉÆÃn Ã¹£À 1 jAzÀ 2£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ : §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï CPÀÌ Ã¹£À 1 jAzÀ 2£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ : §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ Package No.2. gÀ°ègÀ°ègÀ°ègÀ°è Comparitive Statement Package Package Package vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 32 7. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ 7. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ 7. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ 7. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á ¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á §¸ïì ¸ÁÖöåAqï D¸ÀÄ¥Á ¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt ¹£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À ¤ªÀiÁðt PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À®Ä ¢ :

05. 01.2011 gÀAzÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ F PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À®Ä ¢ :

05. 01.2011 gÀAzÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

8. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ 1 jAzÀ 4 gÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ 8. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ 1 jAzÀ 4 gÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ 8. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ 1 jAzÀ 4 gÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ 8. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ 1 jAzÀ 4 gÀ°è w½¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÁªÀÄUÁj §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ----¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÁªÀÄUÁj eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ §¸ïì ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ §¸ïì ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ §¸ïì ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008----09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008 ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢ :

06. 01.2011 gÀ°è ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ J¸ï.J¥sï.¹ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢ :

06. 01.2011 gÀ°è ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ ÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ Form 5 (See ¢ :

28. 02.2011 gÀ°è ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ¢ :

28. 02.2011 gÀ°è ªÀÄÄPÁ ÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ¢ :

28. 02.2011 gÀ°è ªÀÄÄPÁ ¢ :

28. 02.2011 gÀ°è ªÀÄÄPÁ ÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ Rule

24) Completion Report £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ GvÀÛgÀ----zÀQët ¢QÌ£À°è ¸Àé®à SÁ° §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ----¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ GvÀÛgÀ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ zÀQët ¢QÌ£À°è ¸Àé®à SÁ° ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ GvÀÛgÀ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ GvÀÛgÀ zÀQët ¢QÌ£À°è ¸Àé®à SÁ° zÀQët ¢QÌ£À°è ¸Àé®à SÁ° eÁUÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÁUÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÁUÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÁUÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. [J]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï GvÀÛgÀ ¢QÌ£À°ègÀÄªÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü: [J]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï GvÀÛgÀ ¢Q Ì£À°ègÀÄªÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü:---- Ì£À°ègÀÄªÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü: [J]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï GvÀÛgÀ ¢Q [J]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï GvÀÛgÀ ¢Q Ì£À°ègÀÄªÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü: ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉºÀgÀÄ PÀ¯Á ªÀÄA¢gÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉºÀgÀÄ PÀ¯Á ªÀÄA¢gÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉºÀgÀÄ PÀ¯Á ªÀÄA¢gÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉºÀgÀÄ PÀ¯Á ªÀÄA¢gÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ eÁUÀ,eÁUÀ,eÁUÀ,eÁUÀ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ. ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ. ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ. ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ ªÁtÂdå ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ. zÀQëtPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. zÀQëtPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. zÀQëtPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. zÀQëtPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. F ªÉÄÃF ªÉÄÃF ªÉÄÃF ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸Àé®à ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸Àé®à ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸Àé®à ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸Àé®à SÁ° eÁUÀ«zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008----09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ SÁ° eÁUÀ«zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ SÁ° eÁUÀ«zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008 SÁ° eÁUÀ«zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è 2008 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ 33 C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. CzÀÄ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. CzÀÄ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. CzÀÄ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. CzÀÄ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ SÁ°¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀåPÉÌ F eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀ DmÉÆÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®UÉÃeï SÁ°¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀåPÉÌ F eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀ DmÉÆÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®UÉÃeï SÁ°¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀåPÉÌ F eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀ DmÉÆÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®UÉÃeï SÁ°¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀåPÉÌ F eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀ DmÉÆÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®UÉÃeï DmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤®ÄUÀqÉAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß DmÉÆÃ DmÉÆÃUÀ¼ ÀÄ ¤®ÄUÀqÉAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß DmÉÆÃ DmÉÆÃUÀ¼ DmÉÆÃUÀ¼ ÀÄ ¤®ÄUÀqÉAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß DmÉÆÃ ÀÄ ¤®ÄUÀqÉAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß DmÉÆÃ ¤¯ÁÝtªÉAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. ¤¯ÁÝtªÉAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. ¤¯ÁÝtªÉAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. ¤¯ÁÝtªÉAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. [©]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï zÀQët ¢QÌ£À eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü: [©]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï zÀQët ¢QÌ£À eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü:---- [©]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï zÀQët ¢QÌ£À eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü: [©]. §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï zÀQët ¢QÌ£À eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPï §A¢ü: ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥ÀÆªÀð : gÁdå ºÉzÁÝj, ¥À²ÑªÀÄ : ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 8 Cr gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ : ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 8 Cr gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ : ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 8 Cr gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ : ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 8 Cr gÀ¸ÉÛ zÀQëtPÉÌ : ºÉÊ ªÀiÁ¸ïÌ ¯ÉÊmï, ²ªÀ°AUÀ ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ : ºÉÊ ªÀiÁ¸ïÌ ¯ÉÊmï, ²ªÀ°AUÀ ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ : ºÉÊ ªÀiÁ¸ïÌ ¯ÉÊmï, ²ªÀ°AUÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÀQëtPÉÌ : ºÉÊ ªÀiÁ¸ïÌ ¯ÉÊmï, ²ªÀ°AUÀ ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀÄ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀnÖUÉ CAUÀr. EªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀÄ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀnÖUÉ CAUÀr. EªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀÄ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀnÖUÉ CAUÀr. EªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀÄ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀnÖUÉ CAUÀr. GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : §¸ïì ¤¯ÁÝt. F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ZÉPï §A¢ü ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ 2008----09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ 2008 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ 2008 ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ 2008 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ 09 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄvÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄvÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄvÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄvÀ ÛzÉ. ÛzÉ. ÛzÉ. ÛzÉ.

9. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C¯ÁáªÀ¢ mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæPÀluÉ, 9. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C¯ÁáªÀ¢ mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæPÀluÉ, 9. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C¯ÁáªÀ¢ mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæPÀluÉ, 9. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛ C¯ÁáªÀ¢ mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæPÀluÉ, CVæÃªÉÄAmï PÁ¦ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è CVæÃªÉÄAmï PÁ¦ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è CVæÃªÉÄAmï PÁ¦ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è CVæÃªÉÄAmï PÁ¦ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀUÀ¼À°è ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁUÀ ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ RÄzÁÝV vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁUÀ ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ RÄzÁÝV vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁUÀ ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ RÄzÁÝV vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁUÀ ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ RÄzÁÝV vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÈ¶× ------ UÉÃ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV §¸ï ¸ÁÖöåAqï ÀPÀ° ------ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ £ÀPÀ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ £ UÉÃ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV §¸ï ¸ÁÖöåAqï ------ ÀPÀ° ÀPÀ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ £ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ £ ------ UÉÃ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV §¸ï ¸ÁÖöåAqï UÉÃ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV §¸ï ¸ÁÖöåAqï ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ :

03. 03.2011 gÀ°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ :

03. 03.2011 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

10. vÁ¯ÉÆèÃPÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ »A§¢AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ CxÀªÁ 10. vÁ¯ÉÆèÃPÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ »A§¢AiÀÄ °è ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ CxÀªÁ 10. vÁ¯ÉÆèÃPÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ »A§¢AiÀÄ 10. vÁ¯ÉÆèÃPÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ »A§¢AiÀÄ °è ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ CxÀªÁ °è ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ CxÀªÁ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ SÁ° eÁUÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. F ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ SÁ° eÁUÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. F ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ SÁ° eÁUÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. F ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ SÁ° eÁUÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. F34¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÀPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÀPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÀPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÀPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

11. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ 11. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ 11. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ 11. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 5£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛAiÉÆA¢UÉ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀåQÛAiÉ ÆA¢UÉ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀåQÛAiÉ ªÀåQÛAiÉ ÆA¢UÉ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ÆA¢UÉ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV µÀjPÁÌV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ DzÁAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ DzÁAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ DzÁAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ DzÁAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ºÉaÑ¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ºÉaÑ¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ºÉaÑ¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ºÉaÑ¹PÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è £ÀµÀÖª ÀÅAlÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è £ÀµÀÖª ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¨Áj ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è £ÀµÀÖª ÀÅAlÄ ÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ §¸ïì ¸ÁéöåAqï CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÁ eÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀPÀ° ¸ÀºÀ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀPÀ° ¸ÀºÀ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀPÀ° ¸ÀºÀ C°è ªÀÄ½UÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÀ° ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ : zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÀ° ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ : zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÀ° ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÀ° ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ : Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ :

08. 03.2011 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024----00 (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ 08.03.2011 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024 00 (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ 08.03.2011 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024 08.03.2011 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ. 9,15,024 00 (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ 00 (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ E¥Ààvï £Á®ÄÌ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A120 120 ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A120 120---- ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A120 120 ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A120 120 ©, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477 (J) gÉ/« 149 ©, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477 (J) g É/« 149 ©, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477 (J) g ©, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477 (J) g É/« 149 É/« 149 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ PÀ®A13À jÃvÀå ²PÁëºÀð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ PÀ®A13À jÃvÀå ²PÁëºÀð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ PÀ®A13À jÃvÀå ²PÁëºÀð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ PÀ®A13À jÃvÀå ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁdå C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁdå C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁdå C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÉÆÃnÃ¹£À 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ DVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ DVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ DVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ DVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ «±ÉÃµÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ EvÀgÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ «±ÉÃµÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ EvÀgÉ £ÁåA iÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ «±ÉÃµÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ EvÀgÉ £ÁåA ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ «±ÉÃµÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ EvÀgÉ £ÁåA iÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è iÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ (Previous Sanction for Prosecution) CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ ) CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ ) CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ ) CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥Àæ PÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥Àæ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥Àæ PÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ PÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄj ¥Àr¸À®Ä PÀ®A19¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1988 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀÆªÀð zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀÆªÀð zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀÆªÀð zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A197gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀÆªÀð 35 ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjzÉ. EzÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjzÉ. EzÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjzÉ. EzÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjzÉ. EzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ÃwAiÀÄ zÀÈ¶×¬ÄAzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ ¸Àj¬ÄgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄ Û ¤ÃwAiÀÄ zÀÈ¶×¬ÄAzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ ¸Àj¬ÄgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄ Û ¤ÃwAiÀÄ zÀÈ¶×¬ÄAzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ ¸Àj¬ÄgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Û ¤ÃwAiÀÄ zÀÈ¶×¬ÄAzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ ¸Àj¬ÄgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀÜ¼À : ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:

23. 10.2013 ¸ÀÜ¼À : ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:

23. 10.2013 ¸ÀÜ¼À : ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼À : ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:

23. 10.2013 ¢£ÁAPÀ:

23. 10.2013 (²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ©.J¸ï. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï) (²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ©.J¸ï. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï) (²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ©.J¸ï. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï) (²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ©.J¸ï. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï) CfðzÁgÀ/ªÀQÃ® CfðzÁgÀ/ªÀQÃ® CfðzÁgÀ/ªÀQÃ® CfðzÁgÀ/ªÀQÃ® 18. On a careful reading of the above said letter, and also similar letter in another case, it is clear that much earlier i.e., to say more than three months prior to the filing of the complaint, the complainant has issued such notice seeking sanction to prosecute the accused persons. On meaningful and careful reading of the above said letters, addressed to the Chief Secretary before filing of the above two complaints, disclose that the complainant has brought to the notice of the acts and omissions of the accused persons and also their illegal activity by misusing their office as such public servants. A detailed allegation as made in the complaint finds a place in the said two letters. The letters also disclose that the complainant along with the letters has also furnished the necessary documents to bring them to the kind notice of the Chief Secretary to the 36 Government of Karnataka, and sought for sanction order to prosecute the accused. In the said two batches of the cases, as I have already referred to, in the complaint itself the complainant has relied upon the decision of the Subramanian Swamy’s case cited supra and requested the court to entertain the complaint on the ground that, as the Government has not responded to these letters seeking sanction to prosecute the accused within three months, nor sought for any extension of time for issue of sanction order or to issue any intimation to the complainant. Therefore, on the ground of deemed sanction the complainant has filed the above said two complaints. Now this court has to examine whether the non-reply to the letter addressed by the complainant to the Government of Karnataka amounts to a deemed sanction to prosecute the accused.

19. In the above said backdrop, first let me go through the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 37 Subramanian Swamy’s case cited supra. At para-81 of the judgment, while dealing with various facets of criminal law and also relying upon several earlier rulings of its own and also considering the dire urgency in giving such directions, the Apex Court has also considered the importance of sanction to be granted by the Government in order to protect the interest of the public at large and laid down the following guidelines:- “81. In my view, the Parliament should consider the Constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the rule of law wherein `due process of law' has been read into by introducing a time limit in Section 19 of the P.C. Act 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. The Parliament may, in my opinion, consider the following guidelines: a) All proposals for sanction placed before any Sanctioning Authority, empowered to grant sanction for the prosecution of a public servant under section 19 of the P.C. Act must be decided within a period of three months 38 of the receipt of the proposal by the concerned authority; b) Where consultation is required with the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, and the same is not possible within the three months mentioned in clause (a) above, an extension of one month period may be allowed, but the request for consultation is to be sent in writing within the three months mentioned in (a) above. A copy of the said request will be sent to the prosecuting agency or the private complainant to intimate them about the extension of the time limit. c) At the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the charge sheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 39 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit.

20. On perusal of the above said guidelines the parliament has been advised to restructure Section 19 of the P.C. Act. It is also worth to note here in another decision of the Apex Court in Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India in W.P. (Civil No.305/2007) vide judgment dated 6.8.2014, wherein it has also reiterated the said guidelines directing the Parliament to consider the constitutional intention of Article-14 enshrining the rule of law wherein due process of law has been read into by introducing a time limit in Section 19 of the PC Act 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. The Court also observed that, section 19 of the P.C. Act is not violative of any article of the constitution, it cannot be removed from the statute book, and further observed that, sanction order is an absolute legal requirement, but till the said section is reconstructed by proper legislation, Dr. Subramanya Swamy’s case would 40 take care of all the situations. That makes it very clear that the guidelines in Dr Subramaniayan Swamy’s case have to be strictly adhered to by the Executives till the said provision is reconstructed.

21. Now the question arises before this court is, whether such guidelines, in the absence of any statute, can be said to be a mandatory direction to be followed by the Government till the Parliament or the Legislature enact any law in compliance with the said guidelines. In this context, it is worth to refer some of the important aspects.

22. Grant of sanction is truly an administrative act of the competent authority. The purpose behind the provision under Section 19 of the P.C. Act is to protect the public servant from harassment by frivolous or vexatious prosecution and also not to shield corrupt official. The competent authority gets an opportunity before according sanction to analyze the materials on record and to come to a conclusion whether the said 41 official is to be protected or the sanction has to be granted to prosecute the said person. The said act of the Government has got two important facets. The first one is on the basis of the materials on record the Government not only has to safeguard the interest of the public servant but also bear in mind the interest of the public at large that the corruption being a rampant cancerous decease spread over the entire country. Secondly the competent authorities should bear in mind that the corruption in our country poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance and it also creates a serious threat not only to the foundation to the democracy but also to rule of law. Therefore, it is the fundamental duty of the competent authority to take swift action either to grant sanction or to refuse, acting upon the materials available on record. In this backdrop the court has to see whether such a direction by the Supreme Court can be treated as a mandatory solution to the Central Government, State Government and the 42 authorities who are empowered to accord sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988, till a proper amendment is brought to the Statute.

23. In the above said backdrop, it is just and necessary for this court to remind some of the decisions of the Apex Court as to how the Supreme Court has dealt with the directions issued by the Apex Court and also how those guidelines or directions shall be implemented and followed by the executives.

24. It is worth to note here that there are innumerable rulings where the Apex Court by exercising its extraordinary powers enshrined under Articles 32 and 142 of the constitution issued various guidelines and directions for the benefit of the society at large and also to bring good governance in accordance with our constitutional ambitions. 43 25. The Apex Court in Vineeth Narain Vs union of India reported in (1998)1 SCC226at para 51 held as follows: “51. In exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 32 read with article 142,guidelines and directions have been issued in large number of cases and a brief reference to a few of them is sufficient. In Erach Sam Kanga V. Union of India the Constitution Bench laid down certain guidelines relating to the Emigration Act. In Lakshmi kanth pandey Vs Union of India (In re, Foreign Adoption), guidelines for adoption of minor children by foreigners were laid down. Similarly in State of W.B. Vs Sampat Lal, K Veerswami Vs Union of India, Union Carbide Corporation Vs Union of India, Delhi Judicial Service Assn.Vs State of Gujarat (Nadiad case); dinesh Trivedi, M.P. Vs Union of India, guidelines were laid down having the effect of law, requiring regid compliance. In Supreme Court Advocates on-Record Assn.Vs Union of India(IInd Judges case) a nine-Judge Bench laid down guidelines and norms for the appointment and transfer of 44 judges which are being rigidly followed in the matter of appointments of High Court and Supreme Court Judges and transfer of High Court Judges. More recently in Vishaka Vs State of Rajastan elaborate guidelines have been laid down for observance in workplaces relating to sexual harassment of working women. In Vishaka it was said ( SCC pp 249- 50, para

11) “11. The obligation of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of these fundamental rights in the absence of legislation must be viewed along with the role of judiciary envisaged in the Beiging Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region. These principles were accepted by the Chief Justices of Asia and pacific at Beijing in 1995(As amended at Manila 28th August 1997) as those representing the minimum standards necessary to be observed in order to maintain the independence and effective functioning of the judiciary. The objectives of the judiciary mentioned in the Beijing statement are; 45 Objectives of Judiciary:

10. The objectives and functions of the Judiciary include the following: (a) to ensure that all persons are able to live securely under the rule of law. (b) to promote, within the proper limits of the judicial function, the observance and the attainment of human rights: and (C) to administer the law impartially among persons and between persons and the state. Thus, an exercise of this kind by the Court is now a well-settled practice which has taken firm roots in our constitutional jurisprudence. This exercise is essential to fill the void in the absence of suitable legislation to cover the field.” The above said ruling indicate that the guidelines though not exhaustive but they are definitely precise, strict and stringent norms, which are directed to be followed by the concerned authorities in a rigid manner. In the above said decision the obligation of the court under article 32 of the constitution for the enforcement 46 of fundamental rights in the absence of any legislation, have been viewed very seriously and the role of judiciary has been envisaged.

26. Precisely I can point out that in Vishaka’s case noted above, the Apex Court in a very stern manner indicated the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by means of executive orders and where there is inaction by the executive, the judiciary must step-in, in exercise of its constitutional obligations under the relevant provisions to provide a solution till such time, the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field. In this background, it can be safely construed that till such time the legislature takes appropriate action to substitute and fill-up the lacuna by way of proper legislation, the directions or the guidelines which are virtually in the nature of judge made laws have to be given strict adherence in order to protect the country from destruction by various onslaughts by unscrupulous, ingenious law breakers. 47 27. In the above said decision it has been discussed about the efficacy of the directions and guidelines issued by the Constitutional courts. Further, the Apex Court has also observed that the guidelines and the directions issued by the Apex Court will have the effect of law requiring rigid compliance. The court also examined the role of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 142 of the constitution and ultimately held that in the absence of legislation, the guidelines shall be viewed as if a piece of legislation in order to perform the obligations of the authorities, which are fundamental in nature. In the same decision at Para-55 & 56 the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed thus: “55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinizing the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone 48 and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law.

56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to under-developed countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to investigative 49 journalism which is of value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other countries: R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.” 28. The above said observation of the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that the Central or State Governments must uphold the trust reposed upon them by the citizens of the country by strictly adhering to the guidelines of the Apex Court, which are in fact laid down with great social concern, care and caution and also in order to eradicate the menace of corruption in the society. It can be safely said here that, unless we make all our attempts from all the corners to eradicate corruption, it may take us to the total destruction of the entire economy of the country and create a total imbalance and lawlessness, which may not be in future correctable or reconcilable. Therefore, it can be safely observed that we can receive the light from every source 50 but we have to develop our own jurisprudence in that context. The above said rulings are aptly applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances of the cases on hand. To say with all certainty that the guidelines are the mandate of the Apex Court rendered by exercising the powers under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, which have to be adhered to on par with law, and though they are not statutes, but, in order to fill up the lacuna in the statute, they shall be adhered to till the new statute is made.

29. The concern of the Apex Court with regard to the rampant increase in corruption in the country also to be borne in mind. In case Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, the Apex Court has observed in W.P. (Civil) No.289/2005 in the following manner: “A democratic policy, as understood in its quintessential purity, is conceptually abhorrent to corruption and, especially corruption at high places, and repulsive to the 51 idea of criminalization of politics as it corrodes the legitimacy of the collective ethos, frustrates the hopes and aspirations of the citizens and has the potentiality to obstruct, if not derail, the rule of law. Democracy, which has been best defined as the Government of the People, by the People and for the People, expects prevalence of genuine orderliness, positive propriety, dedicated discipline and sanguine sanctity by constant affirmance of constitutional morality which is the pillar stone of good governance.” 30. Bearing in mind the above said guidelines of the Supreme Court and also the guidelines issued in Dr. Subramaniayan Swamy’s case (supra) it is clear that it is the fundamental duty of the competent authority to issue a reply to the complainant whether the authority is inclined to grant sanction order to prosecute the accused persons in this case or if no case is made-out for issue of such sanction, it could have intimated its refusal to the complainant so as to enable him to take appropriate remedies before appropriate forum. In the 52 absence of such action on the part of the Chief Secretary to the Government, it cannot be said that the court should not have entertained the complaint holding that it is a deemed sanction granted in favour of the complainant.

31. In the above said backdrop, let me revert back to certain facts in Subramanian Swamy’s case, referred to supra. The facts of the said case and the declaration made therein by the Hon’ble Apex court have got great importance in order to conclude my findings. At Paras-3 to 8 of the said judgment the facts of the case are stated, the substance of the facts in brief is as follows:- “The appellant has been rigorously pursuing the public interest; The cases allegedly involving loss of thousands and crores of rupees to the public ex-chequer due to arbitrary illegal grant of licenses at the behest of Respondent No.2; The appellant after collecting information about the grant of licenses, made a detailed representation to the Respondent No.1; The Government of 53 India to accord sanction for prosecution of the accused for the offences under the P.C Act, 1988; The appellant has pointed out all the illegal acts and as to how the acts of the accused falls within the provisions of the P.C. Act; Lot number of correspondences by means of subsequent letters made by the appellant; Ultimately the request made by the appellant were not responded; Therefore, he filed a private complaint to bring down the accused persons to the clutches of law before the competent court. Having analyzed the factual matrix of the case, the Apex Court categorically held at Para-56, which reads thus:- “56. in the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is declared that the appellant had the right to file a complaint for prosecuting respondent No.2. However, keeping in view the fact that the Court of Special Judge, CBI has already taken cognizance of the offences allegedly committed by respondent No.2 under the 1988 Act, we do not consider it necessary to give any other direction in the 54 matter. At the same time, we deem it proper to observe that in future every Competent Authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Vineet Narain v. Union of India and the guidelines framed by the CVC.” (emphasis supplied.) 32. The above said observation of the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that by following the guidelines and also the observation made in Vineeth Narain’s case, till the Parliament restructure Section 19 of the P.C. Act, they have to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, with all certainty it can be said that the guidelines issued in Vineeth Narain and in Subramanian Swamy’s cases cited supra shall be followed by all the competent authorities and the courts till the new law is substituted so as to avoid unnecessary prolongation by the 55 competent authorities in issuing or refusing to grant the sanction order. Therefore, in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant with all hope and trust reposed on the Government made a representation seeking sanction to prosecute the accused persons. The Government neither granted the sanction order nor refused the representation within three months as prescribed in Vineeth Narain’s case and in Subramanian Swamy’s case cited supra, nor intimated the complainant seeking any more time to respond. Therefore, as declared in Subramanian Swamy’s case cited supra, in this case also it is to be declared that the complainant has a right to file complaints invoking the guidelines in the above said two cases on the ground of deemed sanction order by the Government. Merely the Chief Secretary to the Government has forwarded the letters of the complainant to some other competent authority intimating the complainant is also not sufficient legal 56 requirement according or refusing to accord sanction as sought by the complainant. Therefore the complainant has got every right to file the complaint in view of the above discussed legal principles.

33. It is also to be born in mind that it is well recognized principles of interpretation of statutes that, if the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction bases on the view that Parliament would legislate on for the purpose of bringing about the effective result. Where alternative construction are equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating; and that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion into the working of the system. Therefore the Apex court in 57 many cases read into ‘certain procedures’ into the provisions which are actually not there in the statute in order to make the said statute very effective and purposeful, exactly what has been done in Dr Subramaniayan Swamy’s case.

34. In view of the above said observations, the complaint filed by the complainant is very well maintainable and the orders of the trial Court in referring the matter to the Lokayuktha police for investigation and report is in accordance with law and calls no interference at the hands of this court.

35. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that Chief Secretary of Karnataka is not the competent authority to grant sanction order. In fact the Chief Secretary has referred the letter to the competent authority in this regard. Such arguments of the learned Counsel are untenable because for the simple reason, the court cannot expect the complainant to ascertain as 58 to who exactly the competent authority to issue sanction and write a letter to the said person. In this case, the letter addressed to the Chief Secretary, in my opinion, is proper and correct. In this regard, if we see Section-19 of the P.C. Act, which envisages as to who is the competent authority to seek sanction order, it is relevant to quote some portion of the said provision, which read as under:- “Sec. 19 : Previous Sanction necessary for prosecution,- (1) No court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 10 , 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,- 1. In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; 2. In the case of a person who is employee in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or 59 with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; 3. In the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office; (Rest of the provision is not necessary) 36. The above provision makes it abundantly clear that the Central Government, the State Government and the competent authorities are the persons, who can accord sanction as prescribed. In this case, admittedly, some of the accused persons against whom the sanction order was sought by the complainant are the employees of the State Government. When the State Government is the superior authority even to the authority competent to accord sanction, it cannot be expected that the complainant should go in search of that particular authority and make an application seeking for sanction. When such authority also comes within the purview of the state Government, then it would suffice that the complainant has sought the permission of the State 60 Government to prosecute the accused. In this context, the letter addressed by the complainant to the Chief Secretary to the Government holds good, as a valid request made to the competent authority seeking sanction to prosecute the accused. Therefore, such an argument by the learned counsel also not a valid ground to allow the petition.

37. So far it relates to the other accused persons who are not public servants, it goes without saying that there is no need of any sanction to prosecute them either under the provisions of P.C. Act or under I.P.C. The factual aspects of the case are so intertwined with all the accused therefore the provisions of law cannot be bifurcated and tried separately. When once the allegations made in the complaint discloses facts constituting the offences then truth or otherwise of those allegations have to be unearthed. In this regard it is worth to note a decision of the Supreme court, reported between Amit Kapoor Vs ramesh Chander 61 and another (2012)9 SCC460Where in the Court observed in the following manner. “Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit the continuation of the prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. It is also observed that “Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been satisfied or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance to the requirements of the offence”.

38. In the present case after perusal of the complaint averments and also considering the facts, the trial court has taken a decision that prima facie case is 62 made out on facts for investigation. On relooking into the facts, I also found that substantial allegations are available in the complaint for investigation. Such discretionary order cannot be disturbed by exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

39. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice about the Criminal petitions disposed off by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.100205/2014 c/w. 100204/2014 dated 11.3.2014, wherein this Court has quashed the proceedings and the reference made by the Special Judge for investigation u/s.156(3) of Cr.PC, relying upon Aiyappa’s case cited supra, though in the said case, the complainant has made a request to the Government for sanction. I have carefully perused the said Order, in the said case, the question of deemed sanction has not been raised and locus-standi of the complainant was not raised. However, a passing remark was made by the complainant that he has made a request to the Government for issuance of sanction 63 but the date of giving of such notice and also details of the said notice have not been brought to the notice of the Court. Further, added to that, the legal aspects involved in Dr.Subramanian’s case and Vineet Sharma’s case have not been seriously pressed in the said case. Therefore, this Court had no opportunity to go in detail with regard to the said aspect. Further, in this case, the learned counsel appearing for both the sides made this Court to go through in detail such legal aspects. Therefore, it has become just and necessary for this court to go through in detail with regard to the said aspect. It should be borne in mind that the judicial system, even if it is perfectly structured, may yet not be an effective justice-delivery system, therefore, we have to be always innovative, reformative and our deeds should always be thought provoking in our endeavor. Introspection and improvement; are the two eyes of our system to see what reforms are necessary in our system of democratic polity in order to make it ‘ZERO64DEFECTIVE’, because our intelligentsia should not be misunderstood or under estimated, as we have to some extent prove excellent wherever we are; and it is a time for observing and analyzing our own process of failures and successes, as same thought will always throw more light even on the same subject. Therefore, even this Court according to the learned counsel, has passed such an order and it cannot debar this Court from applying its mind to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and take a different view. Though I am not convinced that in the previous case, this Court has committed an error, nevertheless, the principle has to be followed though the Court as and when applying the latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court has to decide the matter on facts. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to quash the proceedings on the ground sought for by the petitioners on the above said ground.

40. Before parting with this judgment, I must say that the State Government has acted in a very causal 65 manner in not responding to the letter addressed by the complainant by bringing it to the notice of the Chief Secretary to the Government about the illegalities and misuse of the public office by the accused persons. When such a serious aspect was brought to the notice of the Highest Officer of the State viz., the Chief Secretary, it is fundamental duty cast upon the Chief Secretary of the Government at least to monitor such situation and issue proper reply to the complainant either granting or refusing the sanction to prosecute the accused, such an inaction of the part of the Government has to be deprecated. The State Government and the Central Governments are the Parent-propria (quasi parents) of the citizens of the country. The interest and rights of the citizens should be zealously safeguarded by the State either by taking appropriate measures to eradicate corruption or by means of encouraging the persons like complainant by swiftly responding to the need of the complainant and timely providing a reply to 66 the complainant. Unfortunately, such an action has not been taken up in this case, which made the complainant to approach the court on the ground of deemed sanction.

41. It is Directed that, Chief Secretary to the Government shall make all his endeavors, to constitute a committee headed by himself, comprising of one additional Chief Secretary of his choice, and also Principal secretary to law, Justice and Human Rights, and Principle Secretary to the DPAR, to take account of the pendency of the cases where in request seeking sanction to prosecute the public servants all over the state, and shall monitor that, those requests are disposed of in accordance with law as per the directions of the Supreme court in Dr Subramaniayan Swamy’s case as detailed supra in this judgment.

42. Considering the above said factual and legal aspects, there is absolutely no mistake or error or 67 illegality perversity committed by the trial Court in referring the complaint, which contained specific allegations constituting the offences under the P.C. Act 1988 against the accused for investigation and report. Therefore the petitions are devoid of merit and they are liable to be dismissed.

42. However it is made it clear that though this court is of the opinion that the reference of the cases under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the ground of deemed sanction are the valid orders by the Court, but if the respondent police after completion of the investigation is of the opinion that the accused have to be charge sheeted, it will not absolve them from obtaining a sanction order to prosecute the public servants involved in the above cases. Therefore after the investigation before filing the charge sheet they must send all the charge sheet papers to the competent authority who can accord a valid sanction to prosecute the public servants in the above cases, to provide an opportunity to the 68 sanctioning authority to apply its mind to the materials collected by the investigation agency and to take a decision. After obtaining a sanction order the Lokayuktha police have to file the charge sheet. With these observations the following order is passed. The Criminal Petitions are dismissed. The Registry is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government to circulate the judgment amongst all the authorities who can accord sanction to prosecute public servants under section 19 of the P.C. Act.1988, and also for appropriate legal measures. The Registry is also hereby directed to circulate this judgment to all the courts which have jurisdiction to deal with the cases under P.C. Act, 1988. PL SD/- JUDGE

Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Oct-28-2014
Case Number	CRL.P 2442/2014
Judge	K.N.PHANEENDRA
Appellant	K C Ramesh
Respondent	The State of Karnataka

K C Ramesh Vs. The State of Karnataka - Court Judgment