Karnataka High Court
Smt B Yasmeen vs The Commissioner on 22 March, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.6584/2012 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. B.YASMEEN,
W/O.MOHAMMED RAFFIULLA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS, J.C.R. EXT.,
GOPALAPUR ROAD,
CHITRADURGA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SANTOSH M.L., ADV. FOR
SRI. P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CHITRADURGA.
2. SMT.SAROJAMMA,
W/O.LATE DR. K. NIJALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT 335, 9TH MAIN,
2ND 'C' CROSS,
BANGALORE-38,
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.K.MANJUANTH, ADV., FOR R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT R1 AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION ON THE
REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE
ANNEX-A AND B DTD.3.12.11 AND 24.12.11 AND
CONSEQUENTIALY SET RIGHT THE GRIEVANCES OF
THE PETITIONER IN WHICH CASE THE R2 AUTHORITY
HAS CAUSED NUISANCE BY CAUSING BAD SMELL,
INCONVENIENCE AND HARASSMENT VIOLATING THE
SANCTIONED PLAN, LICENSE ISSUED BY THE R1
AUTHORITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to take action on the representations given by the petitioner as at Annexures-A and B dated 03.12.2011 and 24.12.2011 and to set right the grievances as putforth by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Khatha No. 3129, Assessment No. 9794/8249, 3 3rd Cross, JCR Extension, Chitradurga. The respondent No.2 is stated to be the adjacent owner to the western side of the petitioner's property. The petitioner has referred to certain suits said to have been filed by the respondent No.2 in O.S. No. 126/2003.
3. The grievance at present however is with regard to the illegal construction said to have been put up by the respondent No.2. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made representation to the respondent No.1. Since, the same has not evoked any response, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Though a right relating to the property and allegations of violation of the sanction plan and causing nuisance has been made by the petitioner against the respondent No.2, the correctness or otherwise of the contention need not be gone into in the instant petition since the grievance of the petitioner is that the representation made to the respondent No.1 has not 4 received consideration and that will required factual determination. Since, the respondent No.1, who is a statutory authority is bound to consider the representation one way or the other in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on merit, the respondent No.1 would have to be directed to consider and dispose of the representations in accordance with law. While doing so, the respondent No.1 shall notify the respondent No.2, seek for reply from the respondent No.2, thereafter if need be make spot inspection and pass a considered order in accordance with law and intimate the result of the consideration to the petitioner.
5. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondent No.1 to the said extent. The petitioner shall now file one more copy of the representation along with a certified copy of this order with the respondent No.1 who shall thereafter act in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and intimate the result of the consideration to 5 the petitioner. All contentions are left open to be urged before the respondent No.1.
6. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*