IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.38493 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SAMPOORN, NO. 3, SKYLINE CHALET, 2/1-12, (OVH ROAD), DIWAN MADHAVA RAO ROAD, OPP. M.N.K. PARK, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGLAURU – 560 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT. SHALINI SUDARSHAN, W/O. SRI. KAILASH CHANDRA SUDARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
(BY MR SWAMY.M.M, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA & CULTURE, KANNADA BHAVAN, 103, JAYACHAMARAJA WODEYAR ROAD, KUMBARAGUNDI, KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 002.
2. KARNATAKA CHITRAKALA PARISHATH (R), NO.1, ART COMPLEX, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA CHITRAKALA PARISHATH (R), … PETITIONER NO. 1, ART COMPLEX, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGLAURU – 560001.
(BY MR. Y.D.HARSHA. AGA FOR R-1, MR. KIRAN.J. ADV FOR R-2, R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT ART GALLERIES 1-4 AND THE OUTSIDE OPEN SPACE AT KARNATAKA CHITRAKALA PARISHATH TO THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 5.6.2015 AT ANNEX-K AND L.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Swamy M.M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Kiran J., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representations dated 05.06.2015 contained n Annexures K & L submitted by the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation submitted by him shall be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the same shall be dealt in accordance with law if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to odispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS