Allowed

Sri. B. Kamal Nath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2022WP/2561/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Lok Adalat allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the BBMP authorities, specifically the Assistant Executive Engineer, to consider the petitioner's representations dated 19.08.2020 and 28.09.2020 regarding unlicensed construction and encroachment, within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider petitioner's representations dated 19.08.2020 and 28.09.2020 within eight weeks of notice to respondent No. 5.

Sri. B. Kamal Nath Vs State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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. 2561/2021 (LB-BMP) (Lok Adalat No. 3288/2021)

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Sri. B. Kamal Nath S/o S. Balaram, Aged about 45 years, Residing at No.515, Khader Shariff, Garden Huts, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 027. … PETITIONER

¶12

(By Sri. K.S. Nagesh Santhosh, Advocate)

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶15

¶16

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Represented by its Commissioner, J.C. Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶17

The Assistant Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., Yediyur, (Thyagarajanagar), Bengaluru – 560 070.

¶18

The Additional Director General of Police, (B.M.T.F.), Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force, B.B.M.P. Main Building, 1^st Floor, N.R. Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.

¶19

Sri. Mahalingam S/o Late Jawari Kadappa, Major, Residing at No.42, 14^th Cross, 1^st Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru-560 078. RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By AGA for R-1 and R-4,

¶21

Sri. Kiran N. Murthy, Advocate for R-2 to R-4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO STOP CONSTRUCTION ON SITE NOS.7/1, 7/2, 7/3 PID NO.5612-7/1, 56-12-7/2 AND 56-12-7/3 SITUATED AT THYAGARAJA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU FORTHWITH WHICH IS WITHOUT SANCTION PLAN AND LICENCE AND ENCROACHING RAJA KALUVE BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 19.08.2020 AND 28.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURES ‘C’ AND ‘D’ RESPECTIVELY AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ

¶27

of mandamus directing the respondents to stop construction on Site Nos.7/1, 7/2, 7/3 PID No.56-12-7/1, 56-12-7/2 and 56-12-7/3 situated at Thyagaraja Nagar Main Road, Bengaluru forthwith which is without sanction plan and licence and encroaching Raja Kaluve by considering the representations dated 19.08.2020 and 28.09.2020 vide Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶28

The respondent No.5 – Sri. Mahalingam is served and unrepresented. The B.B.M.P. have not filed any objections nor considered the representations of the petitioner and passed any orders. Therefore, there is no impediment for this Authority to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents BBMP to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 19.08.2020 and 28.09.2020 vide Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively as prayed for by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶29

¶30

In view of the above, we pass the following :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The Writ Petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents Nos.1 to 4 – B.B.M.P. Authorities in particular respondent No.3, the Assistant Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., Yediyur (Thyagarajanagar), Bengaluru – 560 070 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 19.08.2020 and 28.09.2020 vide Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively, if not already considered and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing notice to respondent No.5, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, without giving room for further proceedings.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sd/MEMBER

¶35

Rbv

Sri. B. Kamal Nath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. Kamal Nath 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

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