IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.36147 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT SHASHIKALA R AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WIFE SRI M RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.919 6TH MAIN WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM II STAGE BANGALORE – 560 086.
(By Mr. CHETAN KUMAR H, ADV.) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020.
(By Mr. E S INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1, … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS Mr. SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR Mr. B S SACHIN ADV. FOR R2) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.01.2017 WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 01.02.2017 AT ANNEX-H IN A TIME BOUND MANNER; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Mr.E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Srikanth, learned counsel for Mr.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Record perused.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 31.01.2017 in a time bound manner.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 pointed out that the aforesaid representation has already been rejected by an order dated 07.03.2017.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the endorsement dated 07.03.2017 in accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/- JUDGE RV AAJ: W.P.No.36147/2017 19.07.2019 ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ Mr. Chethan Kumar H., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. E.S. Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Srikanth, learned counsel for Mr. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Heard.
This Court by order dated 11.07.2019, disposed of the writ petition namely W.P.No.36147/2017 (LA- BDA).
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the grievance of the petitioner against respondent No.1 is the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided by respondent No.1 and the writ petition -2-
be disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 31.01.2017, in a time bound manner.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, order dated 11.07.2019 is modified and it is directed that the representation dated 31.01.2017 submitted by the petitioner, shall be decided by respondent No.1 by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 11.07.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC