9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vi Shankar, Advocate, for the Petitioner. [Judgment per: V. Gopala Gowda, J.]. - The correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition declining to exercise his discretionary power to quash the orders impugned dated 8-11-2000 and 17-5-2004 passed by the respondent urging various grounds and prayed to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and to quash the orders impugned in the writ petition. 2. We have to supplement the reasons contained in the order of the learned Single Judge after considering certain aspects which are not dealt with by the learned Single Judge in his order while rejecting the writ petition and in not interfering with the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. 3. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingle Judge has adverted to the said contention by extracting Para-4 of the order dated 8-11-2000 at Para-12 of the order impugned in this Appeal. The learned Single Judge has also referred to other legal contentions urged on behalf of the appellant at Para-14 and he has recorded a finding of fact by referring to the letter dated 29-8-2000 written to the Director of Family Welfare Service, Government of Karnataka to their letter/query dated 27-6-2000 and purporting to forward copy of the same to Prof. A.S. Bais, Deputy Director General (Medical) of the respondent's office. 5. With reference to the same, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed at para-15 of the impugned order stating that it is the reply to the first letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y legal and valid. 7. In so far as the learned Single Judge's order in declining to grant the prayer for quashing the subsequent order dated 17-5-2004 passed in the Review Petition, the learned Single Judge referred to the legal contentions urged by the appellant's counsel to review the order of respondent dated 8-11-2004 by submitting representation dated 24-11-2004, but it is urged that the respondent had taken four years to respond to the said representation. The said contention of the appellant's counsel has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by recording reasons at para-19 of the impugned order, wherein it is stated that the respondent has expressed its inability to review the order in view of the factual position and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
