Disposed

Ms. Lahari Chinnappa v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2022WP/21702/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court Lok Adalat addressed a writ petition seeking mandamus regarding representations submitted to municipal authorities. Since the respondent authorities had already initiated action and filed a compliance memo, the court held the petition to have become infructuous and disposed of it accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous.

Ms. Lahari Chinnappa Vs Bruhath Bengaluru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶5

CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶7

¶8

SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, MEMBER

¶9

W.P. No. 21702/2019 (LB-BMP) (Lok Adalat No. 227/2022)

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Ms. Lahari Chinnappa D/o Late Chinnappa, Aged about 44 years, Residing at No.21, Harris Road, Benson Town, Bengaluru-560 046. ...PETITIONER

¶12

(By Sri. P.B. Ajit and Sri. Thontadharya R.K., Advocates)

¶13

AND

¶14

Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Corporation Circle, Hudson Circle, Bangalore-560 002, Represented by the Commissioner.

¶15

Joint Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Yelahanka Zone, Bellary Road, Bangalore-560 092.

¶16

¶17

Assistant Executive Engineer, Byatarayanapura Ward (Ward No.7), And Yelahanka Zone, 1^st Main Road, Sahakar Nagar, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore – 560 092.

¶18

C.S. Mamatha Devi W/o Late H.A. Somashekar, Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.287, Ward No.19, D.C. Road, Chikkaballapura-562 101. RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, Advocate for R-1 to R-3, Sri. Phaniraj Kashyap, Advocate for R-4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 AND 3 – AUTHORITIES TO TAKE ACTION UPON THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER ANNEXURES ‘H’ AND ‘J’ DATED 20.04.2019.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED:

¶22

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents – Authorities to take action upon the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law

¶24

as per Annexures ‘H’ and ‘J’ both dated 20.04.2019.

¶25

¶26

Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – Corporation, on instructions submits that subsequent to the representations made by the petitioner, the B.B.M.P. has already initiated action by issuing notice under Section 322 and 323 of the K.M.C. Act to the respondent No.4 vide Provisional Order dated 02.05.2019 and Confirmatory Order dated 13.05.2019 and has filed a Memo dated 11.03.2022 to that effect. The said Memo is placed on record.

¶27

In view of the above, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, we pass the following :

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Writ Petition is disposed off as having become infructuous.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Sd/MEMBER

¶32

Rbv

Ms. Lahari Chinnappa v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Lahari Chinnappa v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Aruna Sunderlal Vs the Commissioner

Sri a Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula Vs Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

B L Boregowda Vs the Chairman

Sri. M S Muralidharan Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Savithramma Vs the Commissioner