Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Amma Bhagavan Seva Samithi Trust vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|11 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.37973 OF 2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
AMMA BHAGAVAN SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) SUNKADAKATTE MAGADI MAIN ROAD VISWANEEDAM POST BANGALORE 560 091.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O. MR. BASAVARAJ NO.7, 6TH MAIN SREERAMA LAYOUT GNANAJYOTHI NAGAR BANGALORE 560 056. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V.K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE B.B.M.P. HEAD OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 002.
4. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANGALA T. SIMIMATH, ADV. FOR SRI I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R2 SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, A.G.A. FOR R1 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE TEMPLE AUTHORITIES FOR RECOGNITION AND REGULARISATION AT ANNEXURE F1 TO F3, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri V.K. Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3 and Sri I.G. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following directions:
“a) Issues writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the various representations made by temple authorities for recognition and regularization at Annexures F1 to F3 in accordance with law;
b) Directing further to the respondents not to dispossess and demolish the petitioner temple and its structure, without following due course of law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
bb) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing impugned order dated 27.07.2011 bearing No.LND(Y)MCR/65(1)/10-11 of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North produced as Annexure-R9 to the statement of objections of respondent No.2.
c) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.“ 4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted the liberty to submit a representation with regard to his grievance to the Deputy Commissioner namely, respondent No.3 and the aforesaid authority be directed to consider and dispose of the representation by a speaking order in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in case the petitioner submits a representation, the same be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with regard to his grievance that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with regard to his grievance within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today to respondent No.3, the aforesaid authority shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such a representation. The interim order granted earlier to continue till the representation submitted by the petitioner is considered by the competent authority. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Amma Bhagavan Seva Samithi Trust vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
11 March, 2019
Judges
  • Alok Aradhe