Disposed

Sharif S/O Khansab Nadaf v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2023WP/110378/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Urban Water Supply Board to consider pending applications of the petitioner. The Court permitted a fresh representation and ordered a timeline for consideration while reserving judgment on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit one representation within two weeks; 2nd Respondent ordered to consider it and dispose within eight weeks.

Sharif S/O Khansab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 110378 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 110378 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHARIF S/O KHANSAB NADAF AGE.ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. NIL R/O MOKASHI ONI, SAUNDATTI TQ.SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126

¶8

(BY SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY URBAND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-1

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JAL BHAVAN 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-29

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BELAGAVI DIVISION VISHWESHWARAIAH NAGAR BELAGAVI-590001

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

¶15

WP No. 110378 of 2019

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A RIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.11.20211 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO TO CONSIDER SUBSEQUENT REPRESENTATION DATED 18.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. Sri. Dayanand M. Bandi, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the application filed by the petitioner produced at Annexures-D and E, have not been considered by the respondent No.2, I am of the view that, respondent No.2 being instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is required to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

¶24

WP No. 110378 of 2019

¶25

However, due to the fact that, the Annexures D and E are of the year 2011 and 2016, I feel that, the petitioner be permitted to make one more representation to the 2^nd respondent herein, within two weeks from today and if such a representation is made by the petitioner herein to the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same within eight weeks from the receipt of such application. It is also made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

SVH

¶28

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sharif S/O Khansab Nadaf v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharif S/O Khansab Nadaf v. the 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

Vimala D/O. Sangappa Kaladagi Vs the Deputy Director of

Lotus Education Society Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri.Hanamanth Bhimashi Thimmanagol Vs the Union of India

Rudramma Basappa Degree College Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanth S/O Nagappa Angargatti, Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash Gowda S/O Gurupadappa Patil, Vs State of Karnataka