IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.25066 OF 2018 (GM-RES) Between:
M/s. Kashi Bevinahalli Traders P. B. Road, Davanagere - 01 Represented by its Proprietor Sri. A. Siddappa Aged about 55 years S/o A. Chennaveerappa.
(By Sri. R. Bhadrinath, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Department of Women and Child Development, Vikasa Soudha Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru - 560001 Represented by its Principal Secretary 2. Harihar Taluk MSPC (Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Production Centre) Ujjani Siddeshwara Rice Mill Compound, Mahanjanahalli Shivamogga Road, Harihar Taluk, ... Petitioner Davanagere District Represented by its President.
(By Sri. Y. D. Harsha, AGA for R1;
... Respondents Sri. B. Ravindraprasad, Advocate for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-A dated 31.05.2018 to continue with placing of order or supply of food products in accordance with the work order.
This Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. R. Bhadrinath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri. B. Ravindraprasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue appropriate direction by way of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-A dated 31.05.2018 to continue with placing of order or supply of food products in accordance with the work order; and b) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 31.05.2018 in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that suitable action on the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be taken in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-