Sri B H Ashwathnarayana Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B H Ashwathnarayana Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2014

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

         WRIT PETITION NO.1340/2014 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B.H.ASHWATHNARAYANA GOWDA
S/O. B.N.HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT BANGARADAHALLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 213.
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.V.N.JAGADEESH, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
       VIKASA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.     KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
       CAUVERY BHAVAN,
       BANGALORE - 560 009
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, AGA FOR R.1
    SRI. H.M.MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R.2)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
                               2


CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND
DIRECT THE R.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
ANN-B, DTD.28.10.2013 IN TERMS OF ORDER ANNEX-A,
DTD.6.3.2010 PASSED BY THE R1.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, learned AGA accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Sri H.M.Manjunath, Panel Advocate of the Karnataka Housing Board accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Based on an order of the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A, the 2nd respondent was approached for allotment of a site. A representation in that regard was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-B. The representation having not been considered and decision having not been taken, alleging inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent, this writ petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's 3 representation at Annexure-B, in terms of the order, as at Annexure-A, of the 1st respondent.

3. Sri H.M.Manjunath, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that, if the petitioner's representation at Annexure-B has not been considered, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and inform the petitioner the outcome, within a period of four weeks. He submitted that if decision has already been taken, the same would be made known to the petitioner without any delay. The submission of the learned counsel is recorded.

In the result, writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if a decision on Annexure-B has not been taken, the 2nd respondent shall take the decision, keeping in view the order, as at Annexure-A, of the 1st respondent within an outer time limit of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order becomes available and inform the petitioner the outcome. If a decision has 4 already been taken, the same be made known to the petitioner, without any delay.

It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed with regard to the merit of the claim made in the writ petition and it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

No costs.

Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. Sri H.M.Manjunath, is permitted to file Vakalath in the Registry within four weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court