IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.27989 OF 2019 (GM - POLICE) BETWEEN:
SMT. PADMAVATHI, W/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.454, S.G.R. COLLEGE ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 560 037.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 036.
4. THE INSPECTOR, MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU – 560 037.
5. SRI.DINESH KUMAR, S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.382, ASHWINI COMPLEX, MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 560 037.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.BALAKRISHNA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 NOT TO PROCEED TO CLOSE THE 16 FEET ROAD BY DUMPING THE WASTE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SITUATED TOWARDS ON NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONER PROPERTY AND ETC., - - -
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Vasanthappa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent not to proceed to close the 16 feet road by dumping the waste construction materials situated towards the northern side of the petitioner’s property and to direct the concerned police to give protection to the property of the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner the same shall be dealt with 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 liberty that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation to the competent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation afresh submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation by a speaking order and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing necessary parties.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB