AND'
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15'?" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
B E F' O R E
THE HON*BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH:
WRIT PETITION" No.14927 OF 2008 (L_I§gB 1v1;_;:§
BEPWEEN :
Smtfuma Shankar,
W/0 Sri.S.P.Shankar,
Aged 59 years,
Residing at No. 1/0 1,
New No.3, Police Statim"; Road; _
Basavanagudi, I3anga1o_r°556(') 094'. * ._ _' V " « . % _
PETITIONER
(BY SR}. sH1vA:éA.i1v1.%FQi§+%§§.:3.MANJUNATH,
- Anvo<:g::E:.)
1. 'ۤomm.issioIis:1*,
72.
. B.'fl1..,rf1g.:-;-A:_.'.O'1'8V Palikc,
V N.R.$quare,'B;anga1om--56O O02.
' E¥Cputy"¥"'C{Oi:;flii'$Si0nfi[',
' iv*'V'B__.}3.xM.P., Bangaiore South,
"Ja'_3;a:1agar, Bangalore-560 01 1.
. RESPONDENTS
% A x ..[.B§?t’ SR1. \f.Y.KUMAR, ADVOCA’1’E.(ABSEN’I’.)]
***’I’
am
This Writ Petition is filed ‘under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ
of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to look into the
complaint on behalf of the petitioner dated 17.103008
Annexure–C bearing Inward 140.2855 and held;
enquiry in regard to complaint before iss1;ing..’
under Section 321(2) and (3) of KMC Actj.g19fzessia-.nc1s
further to consider revocation of license e.:e..d__”wnQfioI1ed -« .,
plan bearing N648/20064)? ydated 1″43.?.i2GC’8′-xzidc
Annexure-B and etc.
This petition coming .o’n..__for in ;
‘B’ Group this day, the the folloiaritigtl
oRosRp?.t* i
Wen though the ‘V served,
remained __ SI*i.V.Y.Kumar, the learned
counsel’ of this Court to appear on
of 1 and 2. When the matter is
occasions, the lwrned counsel for the
it E respondents ‘ ‘sbsent.
The petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus to
respondents 1 and 2 to take action on the
it filed by her by holding an enquiry etc.
fin
…3..
3. I have heard Srishivaram, the teamed
appearing for the petitioner.
4. The gievance made out iby
counsel for the petitioner is.we__ll juetijieri v
of facts. The respondents ‘V law to
entertain the before it
Irrespective of the is sought
to be it is the duty of
the order on any
complatitlt-_ Failizre to do so has induced
the petiI:ior;er toxfileé’ petition. Therefore, I am
_ of that the respondents have failed
their duty by not considering the
dated 17.10.2003. Inspite of serious
2Val1egetioI3._s.t’11acie therein, the respondents have chosen
‘V V’ iffnot to ajepear before this Court.
5. In that View of the matter, the respondents are
V directed to consider the eonzaplajnt dated 17.10.2008
5%:—–
iodged by the petitioner and pass appropriate in
accordance with law within a period of four _
the date of receipt of a copy of order; .1: ‘
Ordered accordingly.
“”