Disposed

Smt Saritha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/10793/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court directed the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, to consider the petitioners' representations and submit formal applications within 8 weeks, after which the allotment of vacant sites would be decided. The petition stands disposed on these terms.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit applications in tune with law within 8 weeks; Respondents to consider said applications as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed.

Smt Saritha Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45274 WP No. 10793 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10793 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SARITHA, W/O LATE SRI. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.113, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU - 570 016

¶8

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SMT. MAMATHA, W/O LATE SRI. THIRULOGACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.910, 5^TH CROSS, SHIVARATRESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU - 570 015.

¶10

(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:45274 WP No. 10793 of 2023

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIONS DATED 28/03/2023 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURES B AND B1 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOT THE VACANT HIG SITES NO. 36 AND 970 SITUATED AT SURYANAGAR 1ST PHASE IN THEIR FAVOUR AS SOUGHT FOR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the

¶23

following prayers:

¶24

"a. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representations dated 28.03.2023 produced vide ANNEXURES 'B AND B1', and consequently allot the vacant HIG Sites No. 36 and 970 situated at Suryanagar 1st Phase in their favour as sought for, in accordance with law.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45274 WP No. 10793 of 2023

¶26

b. Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."

¶27

Heard Sri. Ajith Kalyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar submits that though representations are given, applications in tune with law are not submitted to the respondents.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, if reasonable time is granted, the applications would also be made in tune with the representations so made earlier.

¶30

The said submission is placed on record.

¶31

The petitioners shall submit those applications within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, thereafter.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:45274 WP No. 10793 of 2023

¶34

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands

disposed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT:SNN

Smt Saritha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saritha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Goyal Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Mr v Shivamanju Vs the Chairman

Niranjan Gupta Vs Ministry of Home Affairs

Abhishek S Vs Sheetal Suman

M/S Veerabhadreshwara Traders Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S G.S. Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Managing Director, Bescom