Disposed

Ambaraya S/O Mahadevappa Yadarmani Biradar v. the Regional Commissioner and Ors.

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2022WP/200464/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph writ petition petitioned under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution for compensation for the death of the petitioner's son due to COVID-19. The court disposed of the petition on the premise that no impediment existed for the respondent to consider the representation.

What did the court decide?

directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within three months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Ambaraya S/O Mahadevappa Yadarmani Biradar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.200464 OF 2022 (GM RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AMBARAYA S/O MAHADEVAPPA YADARMANI BIRADAR AGED 62 YEARS,

¶9

OCCUPATION PRIVATE SERVICE

¶10

R/O TONSANHALLI (T)

¶11

TALUKA CHITTAPUR,

¶12

DISTRICT KALABURAGI 585211

¶13

... PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI RAMCHANDRA K ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI 585 102

¶17

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI 585 102

¶18

3 . THE TAHASILDAR TAHASIL OFFICE, CHITTAPUR 585211

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT MAYA T.R., HCGP)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER HIS REPRESENTATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER IN VIEW OF DEATH OF HIS SON DUE TO COVID-19 DISEASE IS AS PER ANNEXURE - E AND ANNEXURE – F AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

parties.

¶28

A short question involved in this writ petition is

¶29

with regard to consideration of the representation dated 26.07.2021 produced at Annexure-E submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2.

¶30

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶32

for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no impediment for the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶33

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶34

In addition to above observation, it is open for the petitioner to file one more representation with all particulars relating to the claim made by the petitioner and the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.

¶35

Ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Ambaraya S/O Mahadevappa Yadarmani Biradar v. the Regional Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambaraya S/O Mahadevappa Yadarmani Biradar v. the Regional Commissioner and Ors.

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

Sharanabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sulochana W/O Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Mallanna and Ors. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Shabbeer and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

M/S Hotel Mayura Boarding and Lodging Vs the Director and Ors.

Manjunath and Ors. Vs the Managing Director and Ors.