IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.37368 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
KITCO LTD FEMITH’S PUTHIYA ROAD N H BYPASS VENNALA, COCHIN-682028 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE JOSE DAVIS. … PETITIONER (By Mr. HARISH N R ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE DIRECTOR(SDI) DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT SHARAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, KAUSHALYA BHAVAN, DAIRY CIRCLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560029. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. RAJESH RAI K, CGC FOR R1-R3) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner through its reminders, vide Annex-D to H and effect the payment as per reimbursement eligibility letters and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Rajesh Rao, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ, directing the respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner through its reminders, vide ANNEXURE-D to H; and effect the payment as per reimbursement eligibility letter AND.
b) Cost and such other reliefs deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner is with regard to reimbursement of the assessment fee. It appears that the petitioner has made representations in this regard to the respondents which are contained in Annexures-D to H.
4. In the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, by a speaking order within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV