IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35329 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT.SIDDAMMA W/O SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.66, 1ST FLOOR, SBI WELFARE ASSOCIATION, KEREKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560079. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI H.M.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.01.2018 ALONG WITH THE EARLER REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER MARKED AT ANNEXURE-N DIRECTING THE R-2 TO COLLECT THE 10% OF THE VALUE OF THE SITE AND REGISTER THE SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO SITE BEARING NO.MIG-II 1566 SITUATED IN SURYANAGAR 1ST PHASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Ajit Kalyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Sri H.M.Manjunatha, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner interalia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 16.01.2018 along with the earlier representations made by her as at Annexure – ‘N’ directing the second respondent to collect 10% of the value of the site and register the sale deed in her name with respect to site bearing No.MIG-II 1566 situated in Suryanagar 1st Phase.
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and decide her representation as at Annexure – ‘N’ by a speaking order within a stipulated time limit.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 submitted that suitable action shall be taken in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to decide the representations submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three 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 with regard to the merits of the claim of the petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DH