IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.24081 TO 24082 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Sadguru Education Trust (Regd.) Represented by its Secretary, R. Ramprasad, Aged about 53 years, Residing at ‘Sriniketan’, Near Private Bus Stand, Madikeri, Kodagu District.
2. Sri. Raghavendra Rao M. S, S/o. Late J.P. Subba Rao, Aged about 83 years, President, Sri. Sadguru Education Trust (Regd.), Residing at ‘Sriniketan’, Near Private Bus Stand, Madikeri, Kodagu District.
(By Sri. B. S. Basavaraju, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Women … Petitioners and Child Welfare, M. S. Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Director, Department of Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizen, Government of Karnataka, Podium Block, V. V. Tower, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri. Y. D. Harsha, AGA) … Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 2nd respondent to release the EMD amount and direct the department to release the course fee payable to the petitioner as per the work order, and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. B. S. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. Y. D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of both the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In these petitions, petitioners inter alia have prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to release the EMD amount.
b) Issue a direction to the department to release the course fee payable to the petitioner as per the work order.
c) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the interest of justice including the costs of the litigation in the interest of justice.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the fact that a bench of this Court had issued a direction on 07.06.2013 in W.P.No.10278/2012 and had directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners, however, till today, the same has not been considered and further submitted that writ petitions be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners in a time bound manner.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate, after obtaining instructions submits that suitable action on the representation submitted by the petitioners shall be taken by respondent No.2 within a period of eight weeks from today.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from today.
6. It is made clear that any inaction on the part of the respondents will be viewed seriously.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-