Dismissed

R Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2022WP/7941/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought a direction to respondents to include specific villages within BBMP limits. The Court held that the matter is a policy decision for authorities and cannot be judicially mandated.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction issued to include villages within BBMP limits.

R Rajesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7941 OF 2022 (LB - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. RAJESH REDDY, S/O RAMREDDY A., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, DODDA NAGAMANGALA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE – 560 100.

¶9

MOHAN V, S/O LATE VENAKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O DODDA NAGAMANGALA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE – 560 100.

¶10

K. SURESH, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, DODDA NAGAMANGALA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE – 560 100.

¶11

CHANDRAPPA M., S/O MUNISWAMY K.Y., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.523, 2^ND BLOCK, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE – 560 100.

¶12

¶13

K.S.SRINEEVAS, S/O LATE SUBARAJU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.154/2/1, RAMACHANDRA REDDY BUILDING, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE – 560 100. (BY SMT.DEEPASHREE D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NAGENDRA NAIK, R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SOUDHA BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, M S BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD GATE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 001.

¶17

DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, AMBEDKAR ROAD, 9^TH AND 10^TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 001.

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD,

¶19

¶20

NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶21

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, NO.185, CHANDRA LAYOUT, UMAR BAGH LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI TEMPLE WARD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 078.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE VILLAGERS FOR INCLUDING THE DODDATOGURU. HOMMEDEVANA HALLI, SHIKARI PALYA C.K. PALYA KONNAPPANA AGRAHARA LAKSHMI PURA GOVINDA SHETTY PALYA BILLAVARADAHALLI, DODD NAGAMANGALA AMRUTHA NAGARA, BETTADASANAPURA KULLLEUME PALYA MAYLLASANDR, KANAYAKANA AGRAHARA, VITTASANDRA AND SHANBHOGANA HALLI VILLAGES WITHIN THE BBMP CONSEQUENT UPON THE ABOLITION OF KONAPPANNA AGRAHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶28

notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶29

The petitioners have sought for the following

¶30

reliefs:-

¶31

¶32

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the request of the villagers for including the Doddatoguru, Hommedevana Halli, Shikaripalya, C.K.Palya, Konnappanna Agrahara, Lakshmipura, Govinda Shetty Palya, BillvaradaHalli, Dodda Nagamangala, Amrutha Nagara, Bettadasanapura, Kullume Palya, Mayllasandra, Kanayakana Agrahara Vittasandra, and Shanbhogana Halli villages within the BBMP, consequent upon the abolition of Konappana Agrahara Grama Panchayat and,

¶33

b) To pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶34

The writ petition is liable to be rejected on

¶35

more than one ground, first of which is that, the petition is filed in public interest and this Court cannot consider the same and the second being that the relief sought for has

¶36

far reaching consequences and it is for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take a policy decision about the inclusion of

¶37

¶38

the villages within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.

¶39

This Court cannot issue any positive direction to the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioners in this writ petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed .

¶40

It is open for the petitioners to file necessary representation before the concerned Authorities seeking inclusion of their villages within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and it is for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶41

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶42

permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent Nos.1 to 4 within a period of ten days.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

VMB

R Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Rajesh 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

Mr Anwar Nawab Vs the Commisisoner

Sri a G Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Abdul Aziz Vs the Commissioner

Smt.Suvarna N Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Indus Towers Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M. Sandhya Vs the State of Karnataka