IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26523 OF 2012 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI MAHESH HATHWAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SRI H.M.SATHYANARAYANA HATHWAR PROP: M/S.SNOW BANK NO.65/1, “SHREYAS”
SRI SAIBABA MANDIR ROAD THYAGARAJA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 028 … PETITIONER (BY MR.D.L.JAGADEESH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY NO.14/3, R.P.BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY MR.BASAVARAJ V SABARAL, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AND R-3 TO CONSIDER THE DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION DATED:24.09.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION, THEREBY DIRECTING THEM TO ALLOT AN INDUSTRIAL PLOT AT THE RATE OF RS.7,00,000/- PER ACRE IN MALUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, MALUR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.D.L.Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representations submitted by him shall be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 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 representations submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. With regard to the other reliefs which have been claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS