IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26532/2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNAIAH, S/O CHIKKACHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, KENGAL KEMPOHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (By Sri MOHAMMED SULTAN BEARY, ADV. FOR SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NO.49,KHANIJA BHAVANA, EAST WING,5TH FLOOR, RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA, EAST WING,5TH FLOOR, RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri E.S.INDIRESH, AGA. FOR R1 SRI VIJAY KUMAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R2 & 3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.05.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE STATUTORY BENEFIT IN ALLOTTING THE DEVELOPED SITAL AREA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIOENR IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DTD 2.4.2008 VIDE ANNXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Mohammed Sultan Beary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri Vijay Kumar Patil, learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 10.05.2018.
4. 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 representation dated 10.05.2018 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law, if not already decided.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS