IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1769 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT.RAMALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SRI.VASAVI OLD AGE HOME AND ORPHANAGE CHARITABLE TRUST VENKATAGIRI KOTE, NEW EXTENSION CHINTAMANI CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. (BY MR.NATARAJA H.T., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPURA – 562 101.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPURA – 562 101.
4. THE SUPERINTNDENT OF POLICE CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPURA – 562 101.
5. THE TAHASILDAR CHINTAMANAI TALUK … PETITIONER CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125.
6. SRI.M.KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MLA CHINTAMANI TOWN CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTICT – 563 125.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE ORDERPASSED BY THE LOKAYUKTHA DATED 04.09.2014, BEARING NO.COMPET/UPLOK- 2/MISC.621/2014 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-T, BY RESTORING THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER AT THEIR COST.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Nataraja H.T. learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. The petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the order passed by the Lokyuktha dated 04.09.2014, bearing No.Compt/Uplok-2/Misc.621/2014 which is at Annexure-T by restoring the house of the petitioner at their cost.
(b) In the alternative, consider her representation made by way of legal notice dated 04.07.2017, which is at Annexure-Y to restore the house/building of the petitioner as and when the demolition action was taken i.e., 22.03.2014 and also to compensate the petitioner in all manner.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the house has been illegally demolished and the writ petition be disposed of by issuing a writ of mandamus to respondents to consider the order dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Lokayukta to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
4. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within two 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 petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS