IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.59684 OF 2015 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI. H.M. PRASANNA KANAVI S/O LATE H.S.MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT 5TH CROSS, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR - 572 102.
(BY SRI. J. D. KASHINATH, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. VASANTHA @ VASANTHAMMA W/O SRI SHANMUKHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. KUMARI T.S.KRUTHIKA D/O B.SHANMUKHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 3. SRI.B.SHANMUKHAIAH S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, VALMIKINAGAR, BATAWADI, TUMKUR - 572 103.
… PETITIONER 4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 254.
5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF MYSORE, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 254.
6. THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE, SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES BRANCH, CSI LAYOUT, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 102.
7. SRI. T. P. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE T.S.PARAMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT 5TH MAIN, BEHIND UCO BANK, VALMIKINAGAR, BATAWADI, TUMKUR - 572 103.
8. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE PARAMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 9. SMT. MANJULA S D/O LATE PARAMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.8 & 9 ARE R/AT 3RD MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, TUMKUR - 572 101.
10. SMT. T. P. SHYLAJA W/O LATE T. G. PRABHUSHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 11. SRI. T. P. MANJUNATH S/O LATE T. G. PRABHUSHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DEFENDANTS NO. 11 & 12 ARE R/AT 1ST CROSS, BEHIND HORTICULTURE OFFICE, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR - 572 101.
12. THE ASREC (INDIA LIMITED) SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK, BUILDING NO.2, UNIT NO. 201-202/4 & 200-202B, GROUND FLOOR, ANDHERI GHATKOPAR LINK ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400 093 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHITHAPPA, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6; SRI.VIGNESH S.SHETTY, ADV. FOR R12; R1 TO R3, R7 & R11 ARE SERVED AND NREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 07.11.2016, NOTICE TO R8 & R9 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O DATED 06.04.2017, NOTICE TO R10 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-M DATED 22.11.2014 AND TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN FINANCIAL ILLEGALITIES, INVOLVED BY R1 TO R3, IN COLLUSION WITH OFFICERS OF THE SBM AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. J. D. Kashinath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Chithappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
Sri. Vignesh S. Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.12.
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 inter alia seeks for a direction to respondent No.5 to consider the representation submitted by him vide Annexure-M dated 22.11.2014.
3. 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 respondent No.5 to consider the representation dated 22.11.2014 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the representation 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 representation 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. With regard to other reliefs, which have been claimed by the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under law.
7. Till the representation filed by the petitioner is decided by the competent authority, interim order if any, shall continue.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
sd/- JUDGE Mds/-