RANGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition is maintainable. On the other side, the Counsel for the respondent, Sri. Ramesh submitted that, what was challenged before the Supreme Court was the order passed in the writ appeal. Therefore, the instant review of the single Judges order does not survive. I too feel that what was challenged before the Supreme Court was the order passed in the writ appeal. That being the case, in my considered view, this revision petition to review the order passed by the single Judge does not survive, for the order passed by the single Judge had merged in the order passed in the writ appeal. In other words, what the learned Counsel tried to do is, by getting the order passed by me in the writ petition reviewed, to set at nought the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal. Further more, the judicial propriety in me does not permit me to get the order reviewed.

(2.) THE revision petition therefore fails and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sri. C. S. Patil, learned A. G. A. is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents No. 1 and 4 within four weeks.