- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51229 RP No. 539 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 539 OF 2025 BETWEEN: THE NARANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY NARANAHALLI VILLAGE C S PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572213. BY HIS SECRETARY SRI DHANANJAYAG.D. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G K SHIVA PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDH, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI. BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51229 RP No. 539 of 2025 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR. 572101. 4. THE THASILDHAR. GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572216. 5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HIDAGOOR VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, HIDGOOR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572-213. 6. CHEERANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED. CHEERANAHALLI, C.S. PURA, GUBBI TALUK. TUMKUR DISTRICT-572213 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVAREDDY., AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2025 PASSED IN W.P NO. 18856/2025,(GM-PDS) ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51229 RP No. 539 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This Court has disposed of the writ petition in WP No.18856/2025 on 03.09.2025 based on this Court's earlier Order dated 28.11.2024 in the writ petition in W.P. No.14407/2023. This Court's direction in the writ petition in W.P. No.18856/2025 is based on an Endorsement issued by the respondent. However, Sri G.K. Shiva Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must review its order because the very authorization relied upon by the petitioner in the writ petition is under challenge. It would suffice for this Court to observe that is no error apparent as this Court's directions are dependent on the existence of a valid authorization. Observing thus, condoning the delay in filing the petition, the petition stands disposed of. The application is disposed of in the afore terms. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-