IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.54146-54149 OF 2017 (GM-KHB) BETWEEN:
1. MR P M PRASANNAKUMAR REDDY S/O P C SADASHIVA REDDY , R/A NO.550, 5TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, HBR LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, III BLOCK BENGALURU 560045.
2. MR CHILAKAM OBIREDDY S/O MADDILATE REDDY, R/A NO.33/5, 26TH A CROSS 29TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMANNAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560093.
3. MRS Y. P. MRUDHUKRITHI @ MAIDHU KIRTHI W/O CHAITANYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A NO.1-1/408, R K NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR 515001.
4. MRS. R. RADHAMANI W/O R. SIVAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A PLOT NO.43, FLAT NO.102, GENASAI RESIDENCY, RAMAKRISHNA STREET, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, KUKATPALYA HYDERABAD 500072.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADV.) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN , K G ROAD BENGALURU 09.
(BY SRI. H.M. MANJUNATH, ADV) - - -
… RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1) DIRECT RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.10.2017 AT ANNEX-F AND TO ALLOT ALTERNATE SITE; DIRECT RESPONDENT TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATE SITE IN PLACE OF ACQUIRING SITE AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Rajagopala Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.H.M.Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 03.10.2017 contained in Annexure-F submitted by the petitioners.
4. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation submitted by them shall be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS