IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.1779 OF 2017(KLR-RES) BETWEEN :
SRI. SIDDANANJAIAH S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT S. DODDAPURA VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK CHIDRAVALLI MYSURU DISTRICT-571120.
… Petitioner (By Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, Advocate) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE ZILLA T NARASIPURA TALUK SOSELE HOBLI S. DODDPURA MYSURU DISTRICT-571 120.
3. M/S. CHAMUNESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE HILAKAL, MYSURU-570017 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK S. DODDAPURA MYSORE DISTRICT-571 120.
5. JUNIOR ENGINEER M/S HCAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK S. DODDAPURA MYSORE DISTRICT-571 120.
6. THE INSPECTOR T. NARASIPURA TALUK S. DODDAPURA MYSURU-571 120.
7. RANGE OFFICER FOREST DEPARTMENT T. NARASIPURA TALUK SOSELE HOBLI MYSURU-571 120.
8. RUDRE GOWDA AGED MAJOR CHIKAMALEKOPALLU GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK KIRIGAVULU HOBLI MANDYA ZILLA-571 424.
9. SMT. MANJULA AGED MAJOR W/O RUDRE GOWDA CHIKAMALEKOPALLU GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK KIRIGAVULU HOBLI MANDYA ZILLA-571 424.
… Respondents (By Smt.Pramodhini Kishan, HCGP for R-1, R-2 R-6 and R-7; Sri Sushem S., for Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, Advocates for R-3 and R-4;
Sri Manmohan P.N., Advocate for R-9;
R-5 and R-8 are served and unrepresented) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct R-1 to R-7 to consider the petitioner’s complaint dated 5.1.2017 vide Annexure-E, E1 and E2 in accordance with law forthwith, etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 7 to consider his representations vide Annexures-E, E1 and E2.
2. On considering the same, it is found that the said representations have been filed on 5.1.2017, whereas this writ petition has been filed on 11.1.2017. Without giving a breathing time to the respondents to consider his representations, the petitioner has approached this Court within six days after filing of the representations..
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE *ck/-