IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.20619/2019 (S – PRO) BETWEEN Sri Narase Gowda s/o late Honna Giri Gowda Aged about 59 yers Working as Asst. Executive Engineer HRBC Sub Division Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Hunsur, Mysuru District PIN – 571 105. ..Petitioner (By Sri Muralidhar H M, Advocate) AND 1. Karnataka Lokayukta Multistoreyed Building Dr.B R Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru – 560 001 Represented by its Registrar.
2. Karnataka Upalokayukta Multistoreyed Building Dr.B R Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru – 560 001 Represented by its Registrar.
3. State of Karnataka Dept. of Public Works & Water Resources, M S Building Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001 Rep. by its Principal Secretary. .. Respondents (By Sri Vasanth V Fernandes, HCGP for R3, Notice to R1 and R2 dispensed with v/c/o dtd:3.5.2019) This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 29.6.2018 vide Annexure-L and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court passed the following: -
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer-(b) made in the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed for the time being.
2. The said submission is placed on record.
3. Prayer-(b) is dismissed as not pressed for the time being.
4. The only prayer sought for in the writ petition is to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.6.2018 vide Annexure-L and to pass appropriate orders.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he made a detailed representation dated 29.6.2018 vide Annexure-
L to the 3rd respondent to issue an order of promotion, which is kept in a sealed cover as per the proceedings vide Annexure-K. The reason for taking decision to keep the petitioner’s promotion in a sealed cover is not justifiable. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation to the 3rd respondent-Committee. The said representation has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned by the Committee to keep the petitioner’s promotion order in a sealed cover is illegal. Though the representation made to the 3rd respondent, the same has not been considered. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the representation of the petitioner will be considered within a period of four weeks.
9. In view of the above, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 29.6.2018 vide Annexure-L made by the petitioner and pass appropriate order on or before 28.5.2019 in accordance with law.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.