IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.33092 OF 2017 (GM–RES) BETWEEN:
Shri. N. Rajanna, S/o Shri. Nagappa, Aged about 44 years, Santhekallahalli Village, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
(By Sri. R. Bhadrinath, Advocate) AND:
1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, (Erstwhile State Bank of Mysore), N.R. Extension Branch, Chintamani – 563 125, Chikkaballapura District.
2. The Asst. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Near Doom Light Circle, Kolar – 563 101.
3. The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, OA-III, Zonal Office, … Petitioner LHO Campus, St. Marks Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
… Respondents (By Sri. K. S. Venkataramana, Advocate for R1; R2 and R3 served and unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct R-1 to get the absolute sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and deliver the physical possession of the property immediately and etc., This Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. R. Bhadrinath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. K.S. Venkataramana, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the nature of relief as prayed for by the petitioner, the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District, Chikkaballapura, is not required for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition. In the result, I.A.No.1/2018 is dismissed.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of respondent-Bank to consider and decide the representations contained in Annexures –G and G1 dated 24.12.2016 and nil respectively, by a speaking order within a fixed time limit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken on the aforesaid representations.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondent-Bank to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioner 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 the merits of the case.
7. With the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-