- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3595 WP No. 9663 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 9663 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MACCA MASJID COMMITTEE, AHMED NAGAR, GANGONDANAHALLI, NAYANDANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 039. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MUZAITH KHAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOHITH.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU- 560 020. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. ASSISTNAT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1 DIVISION, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020. Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3595 WP No. 9663 of 2021 5. PARVEEZ S/O PYARKHAN, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/AT 6TH CROSS, GAGONDANAHALL SLUM, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 039. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 4; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Manjunatha Rayappa., AGA for respondent No.1, Sri.Pawan Kumar., counsel on behalf of Sri.H.Devendrappa., for respondent No.3 and Sri.M.P.Srikanth., counsel for respondents 2 and 4 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 16.03.2021 vide Annexures-C and D and also to direct respondents 2 to 4 to remove the illegal construction put up by the fifth respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3595 WP No. 9663 of 2021 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that it has made a representation to respondents 2 to 4 stating that one Mr.Parveez has made certain construction over the property that has been notified as a Slum and the representation is not considered. The representations are furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexures-C and D. A careful perusal of the same reflects that the petitioner has some grievance against private individual by name Mr.Parveez and also about drinking water plant and establishment of Anganwadi. Hence, it has sought a mandamus. Such a prayer cannot be accorded in the writ petition. Moreover, the Slum Development Board and BBMP cannot consider the representations submitted by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1