IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.13445 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI. AYAZUDDIN AHMED, S/O. MOHAMMED PEER, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.944/2, 1ST A CROSS, KANAKANAGARA, SULTHAN PALYA, R. T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.
(BY SRI. SHAKEELAHMAD, ADV.) AND:
… PETITIONER 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ULSOOR RANGE, ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, D. J. HALLI, BENGALURU – 560 045.
4. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WARD NO.22, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU – 560 022.
6. SRI. K. HARISH, S/O. H. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 7. SRI. K. RAJA, S/O H. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 105, 1ST A CROSS, KANAKANAGARA, R. T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 - R3; SRI. K. N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R1 TO R5 TO TAKE ACTION IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE R6 & R7 WHO ARE ENCROACHING THE ROAD AND BLOCKING THE ENTRANCE AND DUMPING THE BUILDING MATERIAL IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sri. K. N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
In this petition, petitioner inter alia seeks for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take action immediately against respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are encroaching the road and blocking the entrance and dumping the building material in front of the house of the petitioner, to secure the interest of justice.
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the representations submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law, if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the representations submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Mds/-
Sd/- JUDGE