IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.3571/2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN Sri. Vidyaranya Vidya Samsthe (R) Tovina Kere, Turuvekere Taluk Tumkur District – 572215 By its General Secretary R. Rangaswamy S/o late Rangaiah Aged 65 years. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Jagadeeshachari, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka By its Secretary Social Welfare Department Vikasa Soudha Bangalore -560001.
2. The Commissioner Social Welfare Department M.S. Building Bangalore -560001.
3. The Joint Director Social Welfare Department Tumkur – 572102. ... Respondents (By Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, AGA) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the Annexure ‘E’ dated 22.11.2018 by way of writ of mandamus and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgment dated 03.01.2019 rendered by this Court in cognate Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.44485/2018 and 50790/2018 (END-RES) (Goutham Teacher’s Training Institute (D.Ed.) Vs. Soudha., The State of Karnataka and others) submits that the identical relief needs to be extended to the petitioner herein who is similarly circumstanced.
2. In the cognate maters, the relevant paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the judgment read as under:
“3. In view of the fair stand of the respondents, these Writ Petitions succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the fourth respondent – Assistant Director, to consider petitioner’s representation dated 04.08.2018 at Annexure-B in terms of the judgment dated 15.03.2017 in W.P.Nos.11493-11496/2017 (EDN-RES), within a period of three months, and further to inform him the result of such consideration forthwith.
4. It is open to the fourth respondent to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are necessary for due consideration of the said representation. However, no delay would be brooked in the guise of unnecessarily seeking any such information.”
3. The assertion of the petitioner is not much disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, who on request took notice for the respondents, subject to the caveat that the factmatrix needs to be ascertained.
In view of the same, this writ petition succeeds in part; the petitioner’s representation dated 22.11.2018 at Annexure-E shall be considered by respondent No.3 within a period of three months in accordance with law.
It is open to the said respondent to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as may be required for due consideration of the aforesaid representations, subject to the rider that, in that guise the delay shall not be brooked.
Sd/- JUDGE SN