Mustafa Darban S//O Syed Hussan Darban vs The Director, Town Planning on 9 August, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Darban S//O Syed Hussan Darban vs The Director, Town Planning on 9 August, 2012

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

              W.P.No.81751/2010(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MUSTAFA DARBAN
S/O SYED HUSSAN DARBAN
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE
R/O SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIR

                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI VEERESH B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE DIRECTOR
       TOWN PLANNING
       M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE

2.     TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY
       SHAHAPUR
       BY ITS SECRETARY

3.     THE ASST. DIRECTOR
       TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY
       YADAGIR

                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 - R3)
                               2




      THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY
THE PETITIONER'S REMUNERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RESPONDENT'S NOTIFICATION NO: DPR(BPE) 52 SPU 98 DATED
18.06.1998 AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

Petitioner contends that he worked as President in the second respondent - Town Planning Authority between 04.12.2006 and 04.12.2007. During this period, petitioner incurred expenses towards travel, salary to the driver, house rent etc. Therefore, petitioner made representations and got issued Lawyers notice. After the several correspondence in this regard, first respondent vide communication dated 26.03.2010 directed the petitioner to approach the second respondent and also Secretary to Urban Development Department in this regard. Subsequent to 26.03.2010, petitioner has not approached the second respondent 3 nor Secretary to the Urban Development Department. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the second respondent and also the Secretary to the Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, by giving necessary representation with supporting documents. This writ petition is hereby disposed of. If such a representation is given, then the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law, within a time frame of three months from the date of receipt of representation.

In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2012 for early hearing does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court