IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.4904 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRS INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE KOTHAPALLI ROAD, BAGEPALLI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 124.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SHRI HARIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. SHANKARACHARI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA, ADV. FOR SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING KUSHAL BHAVAN BHANNAREGATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING A.I.T - E.P.I CAMPUS RAMANATHAPUR HYDERABAD TELANGANA-500 013.
4. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTERPRENEURSHIP REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN RAFI MARG NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.05.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Raghavendra, learned counsel for Sri Zulfikar Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 29.05.2013 submitted by the petitioner contained in Annexure-E.
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, with regard to his grievance for reimbursement of training cost based on MES, the petitioner has submitted the representation dated 29.05.2013 to the competent authority of the respondents. However, the aforesaid representation has failed to evoke any response and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that suitable action in accordance with law will be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST