IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.17 OF 2015 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER (WRONGLY DESCRIED AS SECRETARY IN THE WRIT PETITION), MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-574 130.
(BY SRI ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K. BASAVARAJ SON OF KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAVANE, NO.87, SREE BHUVANESHWARI, CLOTH CENTRE, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-574 130.
... APPELLANT 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. N. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.17151 OF 2012 DATED 14.11.2014.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in issuing a mandamus to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner, the present appeal is filed by respondent No.2 therein.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Moreover, he has not been heard in the matter.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.2 – appellant is to consider the petitioner’s request. Consideration of the petitioner’s request does not mean, grant of the petitioner’s request. The consideration of the plea is always subject to the facts, circumstances and law. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to interfere. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-
CT:SM