IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.39010 OF 2016 (BDA) BETWEEN:
Yeshwanthapura Educational Society (R) Rep. by its Secretary, Bazaar street, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore – 560 022.
(By Sri. Shivagondappa S.Zulapi, Adv.) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Choudaiah Road, Bangalore – 560 020.
3. The Deputy Secretary – I, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumar Park West, Bangalore – 560 020.
.. Petitioner ... Respondents (By Sri. Gopal Bilalmane, Adv. for R.2 and R.3 Sri. B.J. Eshwarappa, AGA for R.1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the representations and also direct the respondents to renewal of the lease agreement dated 28.9.1978, vide Annexures – A, J and K, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following;
ORDER This is the second round of litigation in so far as the grievance of the petitioner/institution is concerned, in as much as the inaction of the respondents in not taking a decision on the representation submitted by it.
2. It is evident that in Writ Petition No.39357/2011, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 27/05/2010 and consequently to renew the lease agreement dated 28/09/1976. This Court rejected the writ petition. However, petitioner was permitted to submit a representation to the respondent No.2 seeking its redressal in the matter of renewal of licence and if such representation was submitted, the respondent No.2 was directed to consider such representation in accordance with law. It is the grievance of the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a representation dated 08/03/2012 was submitted to respondent No.2, but the same has remained unconsidered. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of the representation dated 08/03/2012 obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Bengaluru Development Authority along with a memo before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the Bengaluru Development Authority has filed objections refuting the request of the petitioner particularly, on the ground that the prayer sought in the writ petition has already been considered in W.P.No.39357/2011 and has been rejected. Hence, the present writ petition filed on the same cause of action does not survive for consideration.
5. However, the representation submitted in compliance with the order passed in W.P.39357/2011 is placed on record. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it was incumbent on the respondent No.2 to consider the same. Hence, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 08/03/2012 submitted by the petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law, in an expedite manner, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till a decision is taken by the respondent No.2, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in question.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu