IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.56870/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
G. MOHAN, S/O GANGALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O FLLOVER, NO.02, NO.10/4, 8TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA, KORMANGAL, BENGALURU-560034.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD. BY THE ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVT.OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALOORU-560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
4. THE COMMISSIONER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, TUMAKURU-573201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT FREE HOUSE SITE TO PETITIONER, IN HIS HOME DISTRICT/DISTRICT OF HIS CHOICE AS ALLOTTED TO SIMILARLY SITUATED STF PERSONNEL IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2010, OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.18063/18072 OF 2010, OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.18063-18072/2010 (GM-RES) AND CONNECTED MATTERS WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Prakasha H.C., learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.4.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to allot site to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.18063-18072/2010.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation with regard to his claim to the respondent No.4 and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD