IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.22356 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR V., S/O LATE K.T.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.501, 1ST MAIN ROAD M.S.RAIAMAIH CITY, J.P.NAGAR 8TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 76 (By Mr.MOHAN KUMAR L.R., ADV.(ABSENT)) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT MS.BUIDLING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001.
… PETITIONER 2. DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY – 560001.
3. SRI.CHIKKA PEDDANNA ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR (J.P.NAGAR) BENGALURU 4. SRI.M.SRIHARI SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR (KENGERI) BENGALURU.
[AS PER ORDER DATED 08.03.2017 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED] (By Mr.Y.D.HARSHA AGA FOR R1 & R2 Mr.M.S.BHAGWAT ADV. FOR R3 R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 16.09.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-A AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr.M.S.Bhagwat, learned counsel for respondent No.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 has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Directing the respondents to consider the application daed 16.09.2015 filed by the petitioner at Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders; and (b) Pass such other orders/directions that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case to serve the interest of justice and equity.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that he at relevant point of time was posted as Registrar and has Registered the document. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 has performed the statutory duty and has not committed any offence and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide their representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the decision of this court in the case of SMT.SULOCHANAMMA VS.
H.NANJUNDASWAMY AND OTHERS’, 2000 SCC ONLINE KAR 256.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner if not already decided under in the light of law laid down by this Court in SMT.SULOCHANAMMA referred to supra by a speaking order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS