Disposed

Sri T v. Prasad v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2021WP/1923/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to consider the petitioner's representations regarding pending quarrying lease applications filed by a third party, directing authorities to factor them in without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to take into consideration the representations at Annexures-K and L while considering the applications made by the fifth respondent for grant of quarrying lease.

Sri T v Prasad Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.1923 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI. T.V. PRASAD S/O SRI. T. VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/AT NO. 234, 16^TH WARD NEAR GUEST HOUSE VISHWANATHAPURAM COLONY SRIRAMPURAM, BELLARY 583101

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K.R. SREENIVASA PATAVARDHAN-ADVOCATE-PH)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI BENGALURU-560001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARY, OPP. TO RAILWAY STATION BELLARY-583101

¶15

¶16

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY HOSPET ROAD, BELLARY-583 101

¶18

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA RAO. M AGE: MAJOR OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR R/AT PLOT NO. 512 RAAGA FORT APARTMENTS VIDHYANAGAR KOLAGAL ROAD BELLARY-583101

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4-PH; SRI. HARISH.M, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5-PH)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 05.01.2021 RESPECTIVELY AT ANNEXURE-K AND L AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first to fourth respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶26

The petitioner is relying upon the applications filed by the fifth respondent to the fourth respondent for grant of quarrying lease for the ordinary sand in respect of the small extent of land which is described in paragraph 2 of the petition.

¶27

The only prayer made in Annexures-K and L by the

¶28

petitioner is for the rejection of the said applications.

¶29

At this stage, it is not necessary to consider the petition as the learned Additional Government Advocate states that the applications made by the fifth respondent are still pending.

¶30

Therefore, we dispose of the petition by passing the

following:

ORDER

i) While considering the applications made by the fifth respondent, the concerned competent Authority shall take into consideration the representations at Annexures-K and L;

¶35

ii) The petition is disposed of with the above directions;

¶36

iii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the matter.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri T v. Prasad v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T v. Prasad v the State of Karnataka

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

Manil Aiyappa Seva Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs Mahantesh Bilagi

Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees Association Vs Sri P Ravikumar I a S

M Krishna Murthy Vs the Commissioner

Smt Jayamma Vs Smt Varsha Wodeyar

Sri Venkana Gowda Vs State of Karnataka