IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.31307 OF 2015 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/S. AISHWARYA ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI M.E.BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE K.R.ERAIAH TUMBALAHALLI VILLAGE, T.NARSIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 110 … PETITIONER (BY MR.VISHNU HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SHESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY MR.VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF ANY OTHER WRIT BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DTD:16.06.2015 BY THE R-2, I.E. ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R-2 TO INSERT/ADD THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RATE CONTRACT LIST FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 IN THE SUPPLIER LIST OF THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Vishnu Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.06.2015 contained in Annexure-A.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation submitted by him shall be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS