IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.40986 OF 2017 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
SRI.K.MANOHARAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O KUNJU PILLAI, MUGUNDA REDDY BUILDING, #281, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA IST BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560034.
(BY MR.NATARAJ.R, ADV) AND:
… PETITIONER 1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KG ROAD, BENGALURU – 560009.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (M), BWSSB, JAYANAGAR SERVICE STATION, SOUTH-EAST-2, KAPILA BHAVAN, 11TH MAIN, JAYNAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560041.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (M), BWSSB, KORAMANGALA SERVICE STATION, SOUTH-EAST-3, BENGLAURU – 560034.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR.M.NAGESH, ADV FOR R-1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD.23.6.2017 VIDE ANNEX-D, D1 AND D2. B.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO DRAIN THE SEWAGE FROM THE PREMISES IN QUESTION TO THE COMMON DRAIN TILL CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONE RAS AT PRAYER (A) ABOVE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Nataraj R., learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.M.Nagesh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.06.2017 contained in Annexures D, D1 and D2 submitted by the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation submitted by them shall be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the same 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, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within four 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 on the merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS