IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.2141/2016 (BDA) Between:
Smt. Gowramma, W/o Late D.H.Ramaiah, Aged about 65 years, R/of C/o D.R.Ashwath Narayana, No.75, 3rd Main, Matada Halli Extention Layout, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-560032. ... Petitioner (By Sri. G.Chandrashekharaiah, Advocate) And 1. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumar Park West, Bengaluru-560020.
2. The Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumar Park West, Bengaluru-560020. ... Respondents (By Sri. H.T.Basavaraja, Advocate for R2 R1 served) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.07.2013 vide Annexure- J directing the respondents to allot a site measuring 40X60 feet in the Arakavathi Layout formed by the BDA who is eligible for allotment by age and attempts on both the categories and etc., This Writ Petition is coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is grieving before this Court as to non- consideration of his representations dated 19.11.2011 and 23.07.2013 at Annexures-G and J wherein, he has mentioned about his repeated attempts for the allotment of BDA site.
2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their panel counsel, point out the endorsement dated 19.07.2011 issued by them at Annexure-F which the petitioner himself has produced, to the effect, that after the Court cases are over, the claim of the petitioner for allotment of site in Arkavathi Layout, now under dispute, could be considered in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in identical set of facts, the respondents have considered the representations of other aspirants of sites and have made allotment also. However, as of now, no material vouching the same is placed before the Court. However the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous.
4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider petitioner’s representations dated 19.11.2011 and 23.07.2013 at Annexures G and J to the writ petitionn respectively, within a period of three months and further to inform the petitioner of the result of such consideration forthwith.
5. It is open to the respondents to call for any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are required for due consideration of said representations, without brooking unnecessary delay.
Sd/- JUDGE RB