Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23893
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H. – Appellant
Versus
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24654 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T.
For the Respondents: SRI. K. KRISHNA
The court mandates the authority to consider previous representations for site allotment within a specified timeframe.
Headnote:The judgment pertains to a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representations for allotting an alternative site. The court finds the petitioner's claim valid due to previous unconsidered representations and orders the respondents to make a decision within three months. The essential legal questions hinge around the procedural obligations of the authority towards the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's seek for site allotment (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent's agreement on representation consideration (Para 4) |
| 3. court's order on representation consideration timeframe (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representations of the Petitioner dated 28.03.2025 vide Annexure - M for allotting an alternative site in lieu of site bearing No.35 of Bhanashankari 3rd Stage Avalahalli, Bengaluru.
b) Pass any order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Sri. Vasanth Kumar H.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner is allotted a site in terms of the Allotment Letter on 06.03.2012 and the petitioner is said to have paid on the entire amount that was demanded for the allotment of the said site. The representation is made on 16.03.2013 seeking allotment of an alternative site owing to the circumstances narrated in the representation. The representation goes unheeded. The petitioner then submits another representation on 28.03.2025. It having gone unheeded, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel, Sri. K. Krishna appearing for the respondents submits that, if reasonable time is granted, the representations would meet its consideration and necessary orders would be passed thereon.
5. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.03.2025 or any other given in the past and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
