IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.31595/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN G. ANNAPPA S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O PUTTAPPANA GUDI ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562110 (BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADV.) AND 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V V TOWERS, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 01 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560001 ... PETITIONER 4. THE COMMISISONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-10.
5. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562110.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 09.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED: 17.08.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, REPRESENTATION DATED: TO THE WRIT PETITION ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is before this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, in the nature of a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure-H to the writ petition, dated 17.08.2015 and for a further writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of late Lakshmamma notionally and thereafter, to appoint the petitioner on Compassionate Ground.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner’s mother joined the service of the Town Municipal Corporation, Devanahalli in year 1990 and that during the year 2007, the service of ten other workers was regularized but before service of the petitioner’s mother came to be regularized, the mother of the petitioner passed away on 24.06.2010.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had submitted representation to respondent No.3 praying for regularization of service of his mother. Thereafter, he submitted one more representation on 29.02.2012 and another reminder on 04.03.2014. That respondent No.1 vide communication dated 03.06.2014 had directed respondent No.2-Municipal Authorities to regularize such of those municipal employees who have put in 10 years of service. The Project Director, District Development Cell by letter dated 05.08.2015 issued direction to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Town to give appropriate Report. That the petitioner once again submitted another representation on 18.08.2015 to the Director for Municipal Administration requesting regularization. The last of such representation appears to have been made on 12.07.2016. The instant writ petition filed on 26.07.2019.
5. Apparently, the writ petition has been vitiated by delay and laches. That apart, it is an admitted fact that the service of the petitioner’s mother has not been regularized. No material is placed on record to demonstrate that the mother of the petitioner had put in 10 years of service. Hence, question of issuing a writ of mandamus would not arise as no right is vested with the petitioner to seek such relief.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12814/2018 disposed of on 25.02.2019.
7. On perusal of the order rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12814/2018, it is seen that issue relating to delay and laches has not been gone into by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, the said order is inapplicable to the case on hand.
Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR