IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 54300/2017(LB-KHB) BETWEEN:
R. K. VISHNU KUMAR S/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 5O YEARS C/O U J MALIKARJUNA HOUSE NO.HIG-476 NEW HOUSING BOARD HASSAN-573201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.) AND 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560002 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HOUSING BOARD HASSAN-573201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANDEESHWARA, HCGP.FOR R1, SRI. S.N.ASHWATHNAYAN, ADV. FOR R2 & R3).
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER'S SON DTD 23.03.2017 VIDE ANNXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING “B” GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In this petition, the petitioner is seeking for following reliefs:
“1. Direct the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner’s son 23.03.2017 vide annexure-F.
2. Pass such other orders as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an application for allotment of site measuring 40x60 feet on 15.10.2008 under HIG category by paying a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Later, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have not allotted the site to the petitioner. Hence, he filed a representation dated 23.3.2017 vide Annexure-F for allotment of site. Since, the said representation was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the notification issued, the petitioner has filed an application for allotment of site and along with the application he has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- as required under the Rules. Since the respondents have not allotted the site, he filed a representation dated 23.3.2017 and the same is not considered by the respondents. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that as per notification, the petitioner’s application has been considered. Under the regulations, they have conducted the lottery and in the lottery, the successful persons have been allotted the sites. Since, the petitioner is not successful in the lottery, his application has been rejected and amount has been refunded. Hence, he is not entitled for allotment of site.
5. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the representation dated 23.3.2017 vide Annexure-F has not been considered by the respondents. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 23.3.2017 vide Annexure-F in accordance with law and to communicate the decision to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DM