IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.24756/2017 (LB UC) BETWEEN SRI BALAKRISHNA ARIPPADITHAYA AGED 75 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANA ARIPPADITHAYA R/AT ARIPPADY MUTT MANE, UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574240.
(BY SRI P P HEGDE, ADV.) AND 1. GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574240 REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT BELTHANGADY TALUK BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILLA PANCHAYAT DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU-575006.
... PETITIONER 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU-575001.
(BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DT.7.4.2017 VIDE ANNEX-B SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Sri. T.L. Kumar accepts notice on behalf of the 4th respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.
3. Petitioner is before this court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 07.04.2017 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition and for a further mandamus or direction directing the respondents to remove all the unauthorized structure/bunk shops put-up on the public road in State Highway 37 in Ujire town and more particularly in front of the petitioner’s building known as ‘Arippady Mutt Complex’.
4. On perusal of the representation, it could be seen that one of the contentions raised in the petition is that the first respondent has granted permission to put-up shops/bunks on the passage between the building of the petitioner and the State Highway. If that be the case and if the shops have been put-up pursuant to the permission granted by the local authorities, the complaint of the petitioner is misconceived and it is open to the petitioner to call in question the legality of the permission accorded.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has also made out a complaint that unauthorized construction has been put-up in front of the building. That being so, a duty was cast on respondent Nos.1 and 2, more particularly, the second respondent to enquire into the complaint and issue an appropriate endorsement or initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. That having not been done, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed off with a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose off the representation dated 07.04.2017 marked as Annexure-B to the writ petition. The second respondent shall expedite the consideration and dispose off the petitioner’s representation as expeditiously as possible.
Petition stands disposed off with the above observation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR