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

D Mohan Kumar vs The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|25 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.9552 OF 2018 (GM-CC) BETWEEN D MOHAN KUMAR S/O DORESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT GOWRI NILAYA, S.J.ROAD, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301 (BY SRI RAVI H K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 ... PETITIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228 3. PALANISWAMY S/O LATE NACHMUTTU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O NO.27, 1ST CROSS, PAPANNA LAYOUT, VISHWANATH NAGENAGHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560032 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3-DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS UNDER ARTICILES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS DTD:16.2.2015 ISSUED TO HIM BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.4791/2015 [GM-CC] VIDE ANNEXURE-D FORTHWITH AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Ravi H.K, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.3.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Direct the respondent No.1 to comply with the directions dated 16.02.2015 issued to him by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.4791/2015 (GM-CC) vide Annexure-D forthwith by issuing a Writ of Mandamus;
b) Direct the respondent No.2 to keep the proceedings in SC/ST.No.06.2009-10 vide Annexure-F in abeyance till the respondent No.1 concludes proceedings as directed this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.4791/2015 (GM-CC) vide Annexure-D by issuing a Writ of Mandamus and c) Grant such other and further as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justices and Equity.”
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite a direction issued by a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4791/2015 dated 16.02.2015, no action has been taken by respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in the light of directions contained in order dated 16.02.2015 passed in W.P.No.4791/2015.
3. On the other hand, learned Special Counsel submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
4. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in the light of the directions contained in order dated 16.02.2015 passed in W.P.No.4791/2015 within a period of four weeks from today, after providing an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3.
It is made clear that inaction on the part of respondent No.1 shall be viewed seriously.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-
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

D Mohan Kumar vs The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
25 February, 2019
Judges
  • Alok Aradhe