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.30536 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. CHAMUNDESHWARI TRADERS NO.474, B-BLOCK, APMC YARD BANDIPALYA, MYSORE-570 025 BY ITS PROPRIETOR: SRI SYED HIDDAYATH ULLA S/O SYED PACHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.165, 5TH CROSS, N.R.MOHALLA MYSORE-570 007 … PETITIONER (BY MR.B.R.SATENAHALLI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 11TH RAJBHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE BANDIPALYA, MYSORE-NANJANGUD ROAD MYSORE-570 025 BY ITS SECRETARY … RESPONDENTS (BY MR.Y.D.HARSHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 MR.T.SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO NOT TO ENFORCE THE ORDER DATED:10.06.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE R-1, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:09.11.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER IN A BLOCK BEARING NO.348/B IN BANDIPALYA, MYSORE IN EXCHANGE OF SITE NO.474 IN B BLOCK AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.B.R.Satenahalli, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr.T.Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.11.2012 contained in Annexure-B.
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 two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. With regard to the other reliefs which have been claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS