Disposed

Sri. Nagesh H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/16922/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to implement the Public Grievance Redressal Authority's order and consider the petitioner's representation regarding a drainage constructed by trespass on the petitioner's land under MGNREGA, damaging his areca plantation. Court directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation and pass appropriate order within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider Annexure-D representation and pass appropriate order per law within one month of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Sri. Nagesh H Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39201 WP No. 16922 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 16922 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NAGESH H S/O HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT SEEGEPALAYA VILLAGE, IPPADI POST, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SENTHIL KUMAR D.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEKDAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IPPDI GRAM PANCHAYATH, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39201 WP No. 16922 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.05.2024 VIDE ANNX-D AS PER THE ORDER DTD. 07.03.2024 AT ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL AUTHORITY IN CASE NO. TUGPA/SA.KU.KUU.NI.PRA.BEN.V/DURU/VVA-70/2023-24.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 17.05.2024 vide Annexure-D as per the order dated 07.03.2024 vide Annexure-C passed by

¶24

the Public Grievance Redressal Authority in case No. vÀÄf¥À/¸Á.PÀÄ.PÀÆ.¤.¥Áæ.¨ÉA.«/zÀÆgÀÄ/«ªÀ-70/2023-24.

¶25

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶26

The respondent No.2 constructed open drainage in the northern side of the petitioner land by trespassing. The said open drainage is constructed illegally in the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39201 WP No. 16922 of 2024

¶28

petitioner's land and all the dirty water flowing through said drainage is directly left in the petitioner’s land and caused damage to the Areca plantation. The said drainage is incomplete and constructed under the scheme of M.G.N.R.E.G.A. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Public Grievance Redressal Authority against the illegal act of the respondent No.2. The authority has passed the order on 07.03.2024 directing the respondent No.2 to remove the unscientifically constructed barrier to the existing drainage as per the said report. After passing of the order by the Public Grievance Redressal Authority, the respondent No.1 has not implemented the order passed by the said Authority. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 to implement the order vide Annexure-C. Inspite of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner nor complied the order passed by the Public Grievance Redressal Authority. Hence, this writ petition.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39201 WP No. 16922 of 2024

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Public Grievance Redressal Authority has passed the order directing respondent No.2 to remove unscientific constructed building. Despite of the order passed by the Public Grievance Redressal Authority, the respondents have not complied the orders passed by the Public Grievance Redressal Authority. The petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-D and respondent No.2 has not passed any order on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, he submits that direction be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation vide Annexure-D and also to implement the order vide Annexure-C.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits

¶33

that if reasonable time is granted to respondent No.2,

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39201 WP No. 16922 of 2024

¶35

respondent No.2 will consider Annexure-D and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶36

As respondent No.2 undertaken to consider the representation, in view of the same, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider Annexure-D and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶38

SKS

Sri. Nagesh H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagesh H 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

Dr B Ramaiah Vs Commissioner

Sri K M Jagadeesh Vs Kushalanagara Planning Authority

Karigowda. C Vs Chief Commissioner

Patalappa C Vs Muniyappa Since Dead by His Lrs

B R Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D S Ananda Reddy Vs Election Commission of India