Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sri S J Madhu vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|24 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.39084/2017 (GM—MM-S) BETWEEN:
SRI S.J.MADHU S/O JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KANNUR (POST) BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-562 149 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B.S.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA, R.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE (MINES) CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R-2 WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION DTD.31.8.2012 VIDE ANNEX-A AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE QUARRY LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DTD.31.8.2012 EXPEDITIOUSLY WITHIN A TIME FRAME VIDE ANNEX-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF QUARRY LEASE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s application dated 31.08.2012, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, will be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. His submission is placed on record.
2. In view of the above submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no further order is necessary in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri S J Madhu vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
24 October, 2017
Judges
  • P S Dinesh Kumar
  • H G Ramesh