A Lok Adalat order in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the prayer for mandamus was infructuous as the representations had already been considered and appropriate action initiated, and the petition was dismissed.
The Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
CONCILIATORS PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
&
SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, MEMBER
W.P. No. 3807/2018 (LB-BMP) (Lok Adalat No. 109/2022)
BETWEEN
Sri. A. Nagaraj S/o Late Sri. Appanna, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.63/4, Arjun Nilaya, 3rd Cross, B. Nagasandra, Yemalur Post, Bangalore-560 037. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri/Smt. Monica Patil, Advocate, JSM LAW Partners)
AND
2
(By AGA for R-1, Sri. N.R. Jagadeeswara, Advocate for R-2 and R-3, Sri. N.G. Phadke, Advocate for R-5 [NOC])
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.11.2017 (ANNEXURE ‘L’) AND RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30.11.2017; ETC.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED:
CONCILIATION ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 27.11.2017, 30.11.2017 and also direct them to initiate appropriate action in furtherance to the notice issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 as per Annexures ‘L’, ‘M’ and ‘K’.
4
ORDER
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/MEMBER
Rbv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for mandamus seeking initiation of action under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is maintainable when representations have already been considered.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Nagaraj
State of Karnataka
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Smt. Ashwini Adhikary
B. Veerappa
M.N. Umashankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
