IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO.50715 of 2019 (CINEMA) BETWEEN:
D. RAMARAJU S/O D.S. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. No.131, 2ND BLOCK, 15TH CROSS, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101.
(BY H. VENKATESHA DODDERI, AGA) * * * … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN KHATHA No.4136/3889 DATED 18/3/19 AND 27/5/19 FOR GRANT OF NECESSARY ORDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VIDEO PARLOR IN KHATHA No.4136/3889 IN MALUR TOWN, ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner for assigning direction to the respondent to consider and dispose off the application for granting necessary orders for construction of video parlor in Katha No.4136/3889 in Malur Town as per Annexure-G and H.
2. The case of the petitioner is that previously he had made an application to the respondent – Deputy Commissioner for issuing license for permanent cinema theatre in Malur town in the said premises and also has given a representation. The same was not considered. Therefore, in W.P.No.46304/2017(C), this Court vide order dated 30.10.2017 has directed the Deputy Commissioner- respondent to pass an appropriate order within a period of eight weeks.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that subsequently, he had filed an application on 18.02.2019 seeking permission of the respondent for running video parlor instead of Cinema Theatre. The respondent has not passed any order and subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent under Annexure-G on 18.03.2019 and Annexure-H on 27.05.2019. But the Deputy Commissioner has not considered his representation. Hence, the petitioner before this Court for issuing writ of mandamus.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned HCGP appearing for the respondent.
5. At this stage, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent has also filed a copy of the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the learned HCGP that the Deputy Commissioner will consider the application and take action within eight weeks. He prayed time for eight weeks. The submission and letter of the Deputy Commissioner is placed on record. Considering the time sought by the Deputy Commissioner, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I pass following order:
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The respondent-Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the representations dated 18.03.2019 and 27.05.2019 given by the petitioner in accordance with law, if all the criteria fulfilled by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Sd/- JUDGE GBB