Syed Barevale Syed Sadath vs The Chief Secretary on 30 December, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER'. ..

: BEFORE :

THE HON'}3LE MRS. JUSTICE B.V,.1\}AG.ARATH'NA..I A  T

W.P. No.41927,='2o1o'raivi-RESV   A'

BETWEEN:

SYED BAREVALE SYED"'SADATH.--,' ;    *
MOKAN SUNNI DHARGA - _  A  '
SITUATED AT MT:NASuR'v1L.LAc;E»A.__  »
NARAS1MHARAJA_PA1JRA:_'TQv.rN AND -TALLIK
CHIKKAMANGALQRE DISfm1cT«-- if; .
REP BY 1TS'PRES1DENT'SR.I.SYI;D SIGABATHULLA
S /o SYED  AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT GR"NnL1;i:RoAD; NARASIMHARAJAPURA
TOWN AND TALUK_, "c.HIK_KAMANGAL0RE DIST.
PIN No."577._134_    
'  .   PETITIONER

(By Sjrlr  ADV.)

.1. A  CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
RAJABHAVAN ROAD. VIDHANA SOUDHA

T 'I  B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE

   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF CHICKMAGALUR
BELUR ROAD
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT

3. THE TAHASILDAR
NARASIMHARAJAPURA 2*;



ix.)

NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT

.._  

(By Smt: IV£ANJULA.R.KAl\/IADOLL1, (ADV.}   it

THIS WP. IS FILED UNDER ARTISLES 226 

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYI'NG TOCALL FOR"
ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAININO_"rO ANNsxtIRE_--F:DATED
23.1.2010 AND ALSO W.P. NO.4os89_/2010-ON "I'HEgFILE
OF THIS HONBLE COURT. "  ' 

This petition Comingv't'On  Hearing this

day, the court Inaidei-the§fo11oI2Ik§ng:VA°7'_j_~~.  

 

The netittonersét 'in.dti1'i_.s petition have Sought a writ in
the nature of manda:nItis*~.di1*eeting respondent Nos. 2 and 3

to consider their representations made at Annexures–J and

1 to ordefdated 15.12.2010 passed by this court

10. The prayer of the petitioners is that

the respondents may consider the representations made by

‘Anthem thereafter to initiate action if necessary In

“.f”a.oeoI’d&anee with the judgment of the Apex Court dated

– 29;. 12.2010.

‘,9’ .

..:s

2. I have heard the learned counsei for the petitioners

and iearned Addl. Government Advocate for the respjondentvs

and perused the material on record.

3. It is seen that in w.P.No.4058s/ 1ci_’,i the

sought a direction to conside’r_their represe_ntatio.nsvtbefore ” V

initiating any action for demoiishingtiie barga. said
writ petition was disposedfofybyph 15.12.2010 by
observing that it is. open:.fo’r:.the irto initiate action
in pursuanceto’ V. in SLP (Civil)
No.85 1 9 / 20306′ unauthorised Temples,
have been constructed on
public property.’ Jgpetitioners have made their

representationsV-subsequent to the order dated 15.12.2010,

ddtinythetdinterestifiof the respondent No.2 is directed to

u’c.on.sider._T’the representation made by the petitioners and

thereafter» initiate action in terms of the judgment of the

apex chant in SLP [Civii)No.8519/2006 in the event that

“fiAarga’:has been constructed on public property.

The second respondent is granted four weeks time

it from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to

consider the representations made by the petitioners which

are at Annexure–J and J 1.

5. The petitioners shall not make any further

representation and the second respondent is d’1reeted””t.o

consider the representations at Annexures-J and J ‘

the above observations, this writ petition is of;

ie§tJUD@E”n”i