Disposed

Jamth E Ahamadiyya v. Gonikoppal Grama Panchayath

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2013WP/11360/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the direction was issued to the second respondent, the Executive Officer, to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner before him within two months as the appeal remained pending without consideration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal by App No.1339-1340/2011 within two months.

Jamth E Ahamadiyya Vs Gonikoppal Grama… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF APRIL 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.11360/2013 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAMTH E AHAMADIYYA HARISCHANDRAPURA GONIKOPPAL S KODAGU BY ITS PRESIDENT MEHABOOB M M S/O LATE MOINUDDIN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS HARISCHANDRAPURA, GONIKOPPAL S KODAGU, PIN CODE 571 213 ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M VISHWAJITH RAI, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

GONIKOPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH BY ITS PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT GONIKOPPAL -571 213

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH PONNAMPET- 571 216 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI ARUN SHYAM, ADV. FOR M/S. DHARMASHREE ASSOCIATES FOR R1 R2- SERVED)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R1 AND 2 & DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 IN APPEAL NO.1339-1340, GP 133/11-12 BEFORE THE R2 VIDE ANNXC AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent in Appeal No.1339-1340, GP 133/2011-12 as at Annexure-C to the petition.

¶19

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.50/22 and 50/17 of Hebbale village of Ponnampet Nad, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. In the said property, the petitioner intends to put up certain construction and licence had been obtained in that regard as per Annexure-A. Subsequent thereto, by the communication dated 17.03.2011 issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has been intimated that the construction shall not be proceeded further. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal as provided under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act before the second respondent. The grievance at present is that the second respondent has not considered the appeal in accordance with law.

¶20

¶21

In the light of the above, the right of the

¶22

petitioner to put up construction in any event need not be gone into in the instant petition inasmuch as the same is

¶23

an aspect which would be considered by the Appellate Authority. At this juncture, all that is required to be noticed is that even though a statutory appeal has been filed before the second respondent as far back as on 02.06.2011, the same has not received consideration. It is in that context, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Hence, a direction is issued to the second

¶25

respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No.1339-1340, GP 133/2011-12 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is furnished to the second respondent.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

akc/bms

Jamth E Ahamadiyya v. Gonikoppal Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamth E Ahamadiyya v. Gonikoppal Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Austin Roach S/O Late Sri P a Roach Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

M/S S R Constructions Vs State of Karnataka

C Nagaraju S/O R C Bhaskarappa Vs Directors, Karnataka Housing Board

Sri M D Saraf Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt Neelamma Vs the Urban Development Department

Govindaraju Vs the Urban Development Department