IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.40511/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
H.S.RAMESH S/O LATE H.S.SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.505, GRAMAPANCHAYATH OFFICE ROAD NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE HINKAL, MYSORE-570030 MYSORE DISTRICT ... PETITIONER [BY SRI D.P.PRASANNA, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POWER, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE -570001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY VIJAYANAGARA, MYSORE-570017 …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.JYOTHI M., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI S.G.PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADV. FOR SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 29/30.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of a site along with his family members, situated at Hinkal Village of Mysore District.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner along with his brothers has filed suit for injunction in O.S.No.178/1997 against the Local Panchayath and the said suit came to be decreed. Respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner for removal of electrical poles from the site of the petitioner. The petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.17425/2011 owing to the inaction of respondent No.3 and the same came to be allowed. Despite the same, it is not acted upon. However, the petitioner has made one more representation to respondent No.3 to remove the electrical poles from the site of the petitioner on 29/30.11.2016. The same not been acted upon, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met in directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29/30.11.2016 and a decision shall be taken in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR