T R RENUKA PRASAD Vs. MOHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT in the contempt petition was the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.11647 of 2009 which came to be disposed of on 19.07.2011 in the following terms: The Counsel for the petitioner files a memo stating that the petition is rendered as infructuous.

(2.) HENCE , the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

(3.) THE petitioner shall make a representation in this regard, which the respondent shall consider and settle the same if the petitioner is entitled to such subsistence allowance. 2. The present contempt petition is on the premise that inspite of the complainant giving a representation seeking for payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, accused persons have not shown any response nor have complied. 3. Notice had been issued to the accused and first accused is represented by Sri. V S Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate and second accused is represented by Sri. K N Puttegowda, learned Counsel. 4. We have looked into the petition and heard Sri. Vinaya Keerthi, learned Counsel for the complainant.