IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.30229 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O MUNI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO.30/30-1, 9TH C CROSS, PARK AREA, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560 027.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES, 4TH CIRCLE, BENGALURU DISTRICT, NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. PREDESHA KURUBURA SANGHA, KANAKAVRUTHA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
4. PREDESHA KURUBURA SANGHA, KANAKAVRUTHA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.
BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2, 3 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 16.02.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – B, C AND D DATED 15.02.2019 AND ANNEXURE – E AND E1 DATED 15.07.2019 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a direction to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 16.02.2019 vide Annexure-B, representations dated 15.02.2019 vide Annexures-C and D and representations dated 15.07.2019 vide Annexures-E and E1 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner 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 representations submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two 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 merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-