Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Meenaxi W/O Sambhaji More vs Office Of Ombudsman Mgnrega on 10 December, 2012

Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                              :1:



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
                           BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

          WRIT PETITION NO.65697/2012 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
1.     Smt.Meenaxi
       W/o.Sambhaji More,
       Age 40 years, Occ.: Ex.-Chairman,
       R/o.Yamgarni, Tq.: Chikkodi,
       District Belgaum.
2.     Sri.Panduranga
       S/o.Hanumanth Patil,
       Age 54 years, Occ.: PDO,
       R/o.Koganoli, Tq.: Chikkodi,
       District Belgaum.
3.     Sri.Maruti
       S/o.Gurusidappa Kumbar,
       Age 53 years, Occ.: J.E.,
       R/o.Nippani, Tq.: Chikkodi,
       District Belgaum.
                                               ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.R.K.Hatti & Sri.A.R.Patil, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Office of Ombudsman MGNREGA,
       APMC Road, Neharu Nagar,
       Belgaum, District Belgaum.
                              :2:



2.   The Deputy Commissioner,
     Belgaum, District Belgaum.

3.   Secretary/PDO,
     Gram Panchayat, Yamagarni,
     Tq.: Chikkodi, District Belgaum.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.K.Vidyavathi, AGA for R2)

      This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.1 to
consider the representation dated 10.11.2011 vide Annexure-
B, by allowing this writ petition.

      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:

                           ORDER

Smt.K.Vidyavathi, learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 10th November 2011, Annexure-B. :3:

3. Firstly, the representation-Annexure-B is not given by the petitioners, therefore the petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Three weeks time is granted to file memo of appearance.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*