IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26312 OF 2019 (GM-RES) Between:
Jayachamaraja Wadiyar Golf Club Maharana Pratap Singhji Road Nazarbad, Mysuru-570 010, Represented by it Hon’ Secretary.
(By Sri Manjunath B.S., Advocate) And:
… Petitioner 1. Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001, Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. Department of Public Works Ports and Inland Water Transport Government of Karnataka 3rd Floor, Vikasa Soudha, M.S.Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001, Represented by its Principal Secretary.
3. Department of Public Works Ports and Inland Water Transport Office of the Executive Engineer Special Section, Nazarabad, Mysuru-570 010.
(By Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA) …Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.05.2016 produced at Annexure-D with respect to grant of lease of the petition schedule property to the petitioner and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Manjunath B.S, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.05.2016 produced at Annexure-D with respect to grant of lease of the petition schedule property.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that suitable action shall be taken in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE dn/-