IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.11430/2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/S.MAHAVIR SUBMERSIBLES PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SUBHASH, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT VISHNU KURELLAS NO.1673, 31ST CROSS 16TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE BANGALORE- 560 070 … PETITIONER (BY SRI HARIKRISHNAN.B.R. FOR SRI HARISH H.V. ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY THE DEPT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE VIKAS SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BANGALORE- 560 001 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED 9TH & 10TH FLOORS VISHWESHWARAIAH MINI TOWERS DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560 001 3. DISTRICT MANAGER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED METAGUD BUILDING 1ST CROSS, MAHANTESHNAGAR BELAGAVI- 590 017 4. DISTRICT MANAGER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED NO.1/5/29, 1ST B CROSS STATION ROAD RAICHUR- 584 101 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N.HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 AND OTHER RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION (ANNEXURE-A) GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Sri Harikrishnan.B.R. for Sri Harish H.V., learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Sridhar N.Hedge, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. Taking into account the order, which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents.
3. The petition is admitted for hearing and the same is heard finally. Perused the records.
4. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of mandamus to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2.
5. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a fixed time limit.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission made and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. 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 KSR