Allowed

Mr. v. K Ravindra @ R K Naidu @ Ravindra K Naidu v the Block Education Officer

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2023WP/3718/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-action on representation against unauthorized school construction by adjoining owners. Court directed Block Education Officer to consider the representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued to respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 25.01.2021 in Annexure-G and take action within two months.

Mr. v K Ravindra @ R K Naidu @ Ravindra K Naidu… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 3718 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3718 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. V K RAVINDRA @ R K NAIDU @ RAVINDRA K NAIDU AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE V KUPPASWAMY NAIDU RESIDING A NO.7/9, 9TH CROSS ADARSHANAGAR, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560018

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VINUTHA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SOUTH-II, TULASI THOTA BENGALURU-53

¶14

MR DASTAGIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LAT AMIR KHAN

¶15

MRS. ZUBEDA BANU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O DASTAGIR KHAN

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.31, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS M D BLOCK, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-18

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

WP No. 3718 of 2022

¶20

(BY SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FO R1

¶21

VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNX-G AND TO TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF KARNATAKA EDUCATIONAL ACT AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶27

notice for respondent No.1.

¶28

Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with

¶29

as no relief is claimed against them for the reason that prayer is sought to consider the representation of the petitioner by respondent No.1.

¶30

The petitioner is running a Bar and Restaurant in the name and style 'M/s. R.K.Bar and Restaurant' since more than 50 years. He is carrying on his business at No.2/2, Sirsi Circle, Mysore Road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-18 by way of a

¶31

¶32

WP No. 3718 of 2022

¶33

license to run the Bar and Restaurant which has been renewed from time to time from the concerned Authorities.

¶34

It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are claiming to be the owners of the site at No.2/2, Sirsi Circle, Mysore Road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-18 situated towards western side of petitioner's property, are trying to put up certain construction of a commercial building. The petitioner has noticed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have displayed the Board with the style 'Scottish English School' on his adjoining property. The petitioner resisted the said construction of the building and to run the school next to his premises as it violates the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act 1965 and Rules 1967, despite which, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have continued their illegal acts and for which original suit No.4364/2016 was filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in which, an interim order has been granted restraining respondent Nos.2 and 3 to run the Educational institution in the adjoining property. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner has made a representation dated 14.05.2018 to respondent No.1 and no action is taken on the said representation. Therefore, the latest representation came

¶35

¶36

WP No. 3718 of 2022

¶37

to be filed on 25.01.2021 to respondent No.1. Despite the said representation, which is produced at Annexure-G, no action has been taken by respondent No.1 to address the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶38

In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he would not press prayer (ii) made in the writ petition as the main grievance of the petitioner is to consider his representation dated 25.01.2021 at Annexure-G by respondent No.1.

¶39

I have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate representing respondent No.1. She fairly submits that the representation made by the petitioner would be considered within a reasonable period of time.

¶40

In view of the said submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, I do not find any legal impediment to dispose of the matter. Hence, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 3718 of 2022

¶45

ii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 25.01.2021 vide Annexure-G and take necessary action in accordance to law within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Mr. v. K Ravindra @ R K Naidu @ Ravindra K Naidu v the Block Education Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. v. K Ravindra @ R K Naidu @ Ravindra K Naidu v the Block Education Officer

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

St.Theresa Educational Cultural and Social Development Society Vs State of Karnataka

St.Theresa Educational Vs State of Karnataka

Shree Devi Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sowkhya College of Nursing Vs the Registrar

Smt. Shubha. K. B. Vs Sri. Shishira Rao. H. a.

Akash Kumar K Vs the Bangalore University