Disposed

Sri P R Chandra Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2022WP/18521/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During a preliminary hearing, the High Court directed the State and Registrar respondents to consider a specific complaint lodged by the petitioners regarding certain lapses. The court prescribed a time limit for compliance and held other contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Directing the official respondents to consider the petitioners' complaint and act accordingly within three months.

Sri P R Chandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.18521 OF 2021(GM-KSR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.P.R.CHANDRA REDDY, S/O P RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O GIRANI THIMMAREDDY BUILDING, OLD BUS-STAND, JAGALUR TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 528. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.

¶9

SRI. SATISH P C, S/O P R CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O GIRANI THIMMAREDDY BUILDING, OLD BUS-STAND, JAGALUR TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 528.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. DODDAMANI SATEESH M, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, ROOM NO.52-53, D.C.OFFICE COMPLEX, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, ROOM NO.52-53, D C OFFICE COMPLEX, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.

¶16

¶17

THE SECRETARY, JNANA VIKASA EDUCATION CENTRE(R), MARENAHALLI ROAD, JAGALURU TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 528.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1-R3; NOTICE TO R4 D/WITH V.C.O DATED 04.01.2022)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION DATED 11.02.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The short grievance of the petitioners is as to nonconsideration of the complaint made by them in respect of certain lapses mentioned therein.

¶24

Learned HCGP on request having accepted

¶25

notice for the official respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and notice to respondent no.4 having been dispensed with, opposes the writ petition contending that whether some action should be taken pursuant to complaint or not, is a matter pertaining to the domain of the investigating officer and therefore Writ Court ordinarily should not grant indulgence in cases of the kind. Having so contended, she now agrees with the suggestion of this Court that she would instruct official respondents to look into the

¶26

¶27

grievance aired by the petitioners in their complaint and consider the same in accordance with law and within the

¶28

time to be prescribed . This is fair enough.

¶29

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

¶30

disposed off.

¶31

Time for compliance is three months and all

¶32

contentions are kept open.

¶33

Costs made easy.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Bsv

Sri P R Chandra Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P R Chandra Reddy v. 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

K P Patrick Lawrernce Vs the District Registrar

Sri M N Rakesh @ Ravi Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

S R Arokiaraj Vs Mrs Anthony Rita

Smt. M D Tilakavathy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anthony Raj a Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank

Sri M C Hombalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka