Disposed

Shashikala G Rao v. the Principal Secretary to the Govt of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022WP/11858/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court directed the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider pending representations and pass appropriate orders within three months, without deciding on the merits of/layout approval.

What did the court decide?

Direction to BDA to consider representations dated 16.12.2017 and 02.01.2018 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Shashikala G Rao Vs the Principal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.11858 OF 2021 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SHASHIKALA G. RAO W/O G RAO

¶8

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A NO.511, 41^ST CROSS

¶9

8^TH BLOCK, BEHIND PRABHA EYE CLINIC

¶10

JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041

¶11

2 . NAGI REDDY S/O LATE RANGA REDDY

¶12

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/A 21, 2^ND CROSS

¶13

KRISHNA NAGAR LYT

¶14

CHIKKADEVASANDRA ROAD

¶15

K R PRUAM, BANGALORE-560036

¶16

3 . SMT K NIRMALA NAIDU W/O LATE KALAHASTI UMASHANKAR NAIDU SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR

¶17

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A 126, FERNS CITY, OUTER RING ROAD

¶18

DODDANAKUNDI

¶19

BANGALORE - 560037

¶20

4 . SRI V SATYANARAYANA S/O LATE RANGA RAO

¶21

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A 47, LIC COLONY JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR BANGALORE-560070

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. GEORGE ANTHONY CRUZ, ADVOCATE)

¶24

²

¶25

AND:

¶26

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF CO-OPERATION, 6^TH FLOOR M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶27

2 . THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , T CHOWDAIAH ROAD SESHADRIPURAM WEST BENGALURU-560020

¶28

3 . THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560052

¶29

4 . THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE DIVISION, SAHAKARA BHAVAN MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560003

¶30

5 . THE INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DOORAVANINAGAR BENGALURU-560016 REPTD BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER / SECRETARY SHRI SHIVANANDA MATTAPATHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶31

6 . G S RAMASWAMAIAH Y AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS PRESIDENT C/O THE INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, DOORAVANINAGAR BENGALURU-560016 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1, R-3 & R-4; SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-5 & R-6 ARE SERVED)

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR

¶33

³

¶34

RELEVANT RECORDS PENDING ON THE R-2 PERTAINING TO THE LAYOUT PLAN AND ALSO THE R-5 AND 6 SOCIETY AND TO DIRECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, BDA R-2 TO APPROVE THE LAYOUT SITES PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS AND ISSUE VALID KHATHA TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SITES ARISING OUT OF VIDE ANNX-B, B1, B2 AND B3 AND ETC.

¶35

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

In this petition, petitioners have sought for the

¶38

following reliefs:

¶39

a. Call for relevant records pending on the respondent No.2 pertaining to the layout plan and also the respondent No.5 & 6 Society;

¶40

b. Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the learned Commissioner, BDARespondent No.2 to approve the layout sites pertaining to the petitioners and issue valid khatha to their respective sites arising out of vide Annexures – B, B1, B2 & B3;

¶41

c. To issue further order / direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 16.12.2017 and 02.01.2018 vide Annexures D and D1;

¶42

d. And also to issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶43

⁴

¶44

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶45

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶46

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that the representations at Annexures – D and D1 dated 16.12.2017 and 02.01.2018 submitted by the petitioners to respondent No.2 / BDA have not been considered so far and no orders have been passed on the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing respondent No.2 / BDA to consider and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision on the representations at Annexures – D and D1 submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Shashikala G Rao v. the Principal Secretary to the Govt of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala G Rao v. the Principal Secretary to the Govt 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

M/S Davanagere University Vs National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Prakashnagar Credit Co-Operative Society Limited Vs Smt Meeramukunda

H S Vishwanatha Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative

Mrs Anna Chandy Vs M/S Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Mr.Selvendhiiran Selvam Vs International Medical School Management

Sree Anupama Education and Rural Development Vs the Executive Engineer