IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 31425 OF 2018 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI. MARIYAPPA K S/O KUMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT: #37, 9TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027.
(BY SRI. H C SUNDARESHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE – 560 020.
(BY SRI. GOPAL V BILALMANE, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT CONSIDERATION THE REPRESENTATION FILD BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.6.2008, 26.4.2010, 30.10.2012, 15.2.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-G, H, J AND K RESPECTIVELY FOR ACCEPTING BALANCE SITAL VALUE WITH INTEREST FOR THE SITE BEARING NO.1050 MEASURING 30x40 GNANABARATHI LAYOUT, BLOCK-I [VALEGERE HALLI AS PER ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 26.12.2000 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY CONSIDERING THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 18.10.2007 AND 18.11.2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND F RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner who was allotted a BDA site admeasuring 30 x 40’ site Sq.Ft. in Jnanabharathi Layout, Bengaluru, is before this Court with the complaint that his representation dated 15.02.2017 at Annexure-K seeking permission to pay sital price with interest for the delayed payment in terms of the Circular in question has remained unconsidered, there being no justification whatsoever therefor.
2. Learned Panel counsel, for the respondent – BDA, Sri. Gopal V Bilalmane submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in view of certain essential factors missing in his representation; although, this court has granted some limited relief to a similarly circumstanced litigant vide judgment dated 07.04.2016 in W.P.No.13658/2015 (BDA), the petitioner is not entitled to seek benefit under the said judgment for the reason that the preconditions for its invocation are again lacking. The Panel Counsel also mentions about certain facts and circumstances in his Statement of Objections now filed, to resist the petition prayer.
3. The petitioner has given a representation dated 15.02.2017 at Annexure-K which admittedly has remained unconsidered. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in a more or less similar circumstance, has rendered judgment dated 07.04.2016 mentioned above directing consideration of the representation in accordance with law; similar relief needs to be granted to the petitioner herein too on the principle of parity.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the respondent BDA to consider petitioner’s representation dated 15.02.2017 at Annexure-K in terms of the observations made in the judgment dated 07.04.2016 in W.P.No.13658/2015 (BDA) at Annexure-L within a period of three months, and further to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.
It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit any further information or any relevant documents required for due consideration of the said representation subject to the rider that no delay would be brooked in that guise.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv