IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.27576 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SIDDANAGOUDA S. BIRADAR S/O SHANKRAPPAGOUDA BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT SIDRAMESHWARA SANKEERNA BIJAPUR MAIN ROAD, BANDAL CROSS SINDHGI, VIJAYAPURA-586 128 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAYOGI B. HALLUR, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (PUC) M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 012 3. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS 4TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002 BY ITS PRESIDENT 4. MANYA GIRL’S RESIDENTIAL PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601 R/BY ITS PRESIDENT B.A.NADAGOUDA … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SMT. B. V. VIDYULATHA, ADV. FOR R-3 SRI. C. M. DESAI, ADV. FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST THE R-4 HEREIN AS PER THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2016 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN CASE NO.251/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Shivayogi B. Hallur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Y. D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Smt. B. V. Vidyulatha, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Sri. C. M. Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to take immediate action against respondent No.4 herein as per the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.251/2015-16 vide Annexure – C.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the competent authority and the competent authority be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that in case 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 to the petitioner that in case a fresh representation is made to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Mds/-
Sd/- JUDGE