Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
DR. K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J 1. Though the writ petition is listed for hearing on the applications filed for vacating interim order, with the consent of the Learned Counsels for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal. The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying for quashing the impugned Notification dated 27.01.2011 bearing No.“KARNATAKA” /07/“KARNATAKA”/2011 on the file of Respondent No.2 at Annexure–‘E’. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under: The petitioner claims that she is elected member of Aland Taluka Panchayath. She belongs to ST community and eligible to contest the election for the post of Adhyaksha of Aland Taluka Panchayath. After the election for the Taluka Panchayaths in the State of Karnataka was over, the Respondent No.2 has issued a Notification dated 25.01.2011 at Annexure- ‘A’ reserving the post of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
Arali Nagaraj, J The petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.47/2005 on the file of the Learned District Judge, Family Court, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ for short) have sought for enhancement in the maintenance awarded in their favour by the order dated 27.9.2006 passed in the said case. The Family Court has awarded sum of Rs.700/- p.m. in favour of petitioner No.1 and Rs.800/- p.m. in favour of petitioner No.2 respectively being the wife and minor daughter of the respondent. 2. Heard the arguments of Sri Veeresh B. Patil Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri R.V. Nadagouda, Learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners strongly contends that despite the Family Court observing in its impugned Judgment that the respondent has been a graduate in Engineering, has taken his income at Rs.5000/- p.m. instead of taking at Rs.10,000/- p.m and therefore the amounts awarded as monthly maintenance infavour of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
Reported in : 2011ILR(Kar)1976; 2011(4)KCCR2834(DB); 2012(2)KantLJ237; 2012AIR(NOC)302
DR. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J 1. In the Appeal, the appellant has questioned the correctness of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.80834/2010 by Learned Single Judge of this Court, rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant is entitled to file an Appeal under the Right to Information Act (in short, ‘the RTI Act’) to the Appellate Authority viz., the State Chief Information Commissioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in the RTI Act, for filing an Appeal against the order made by the State Information Commission (in short, ‘SIC’), but Learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the Writ Petition and holding that under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, Appeal lies to State Chief Information Commissioner. 3. Sri M. Kumar, Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that as against the order passed by the Public Information Officer (in short, ‘SPIO’), there is no provis...
Tag this Judgment!