IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.18438/2017 (LB BMP) BETWEEN G CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE N GANESAN, AGE 45 YEARS R/AT NO.08,1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
(BY SRI N SURESHA, ADV. – ABSENT.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMET OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, ... PETITIONER BENGALURU-560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REQUEST LETTER DTD 25.03.2017 AT ANNX-G AND ALLOT PETITIONER TEMPORARY SHOP OUTSIDE THE MALLESWARAM MARKET PLACE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Case is called. There is no representation for the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.
3. Office note states that office objections have not been complied with. That apart, it is seen that the petitioner is seeking for the relief of issuance of mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2017 and allot a temporary shop outside the market place.
4. Matter was listed on 21.02.2018. As a last opportunity, two weeks time was granted to remove the office objections and Registry was directed to list the petition for Preliminary-Hearing after two weeks. Neither the office objections are removed nor has the Registry complied with the direction issued by the Court. The petitioner has deemed it unnecessary to remove the office objections.
That apart, despite the passage of more than a year and half, the petitioner has not deemed it fit to comply with the office objections. The same reflects the indolence and lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner and on that ground alone, the writ petition requires to be rejected. On merits also, this court is of the considered opinion that the petition is highly misconceived.
Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE