IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3832 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NDCC- 2 BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MISS. LEESHA DAUGHTER OF DORESWAMY RAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, NO.47/23, 9TH CROSS, PARIMALA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096.
2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, ... APPELLANT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.15990 OF 2015 (GM-RES) DATED 17.10.2016.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15990 of 2015, issuing various directions, respondent No.2 therein has filed the instant appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that various directions issued by the learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order are contrary to law. Therefore, the same cannot be complied with. In particular, reference is made to direction No.1 therein.
3. The said contention is disputed to by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we find no merit in this appeal.
5. In terms of the impugned order, it was firstly narrated by the learned Single Judge that the second respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 05.01.2015, keeping in view the observations made above and to take a decision within four months. It is needless to state that the observations shall have a bearing on the respondents. However, it does not mean that the observations are mandatory and the respondents are bound to consider it in any circumstance. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is to be considered as being persuasive and not mandatory. What the learned Single Judge intended was to keep in mind the observations made therein, it does not mean mandatory compliance of the said directions.
6. No other contentions are advanced by the learned counsels. Therefore, the appeal is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
Pending I.A.s stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/- CT:SM