IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28096 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Bangalore North Taluk Ashrya Residence Forum, Having office at No.361, 7th Main, Lakshmidevi Nagar, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru – 560 096. Represented by it’s President, Sri. Prakash K., S/o V. Kemppaiah, Aged about 54 years.
… Petitioner (By Sri. Srinivas V., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by it’s Secretary to Housing Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. State of Karnataka, Represented by it’s Secretary To Social Welfare Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. The Assistant Director, Department of Rural Development And Panchyatha Raj, Bangalore North Taluk, Bengaluru District.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka, Bengaluru – 560 035.
6. The Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Development Corporation, IT Park, 1st Floor, 4th Main Road, Rajajinagar Industrial Area, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010.
… Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 to R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R-3, 5 and 6 to consider the representation dated 07.11.2018 i.e., Annexure – G to the Writ Petition.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Srinivas V., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 to consider the representation dated 07.11.2018 vide Annexure-G.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 07.11.2018 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner 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, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two 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 merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-