- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43386 WP No. 16496 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16496 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. TEJAS S RAO, S/O B. SHANKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.2 JANAKI NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, K.K. LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI LOKESHA K, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SIDDARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R-1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXURE-A REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2023 MADE BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43386 WP No. 16496 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; 1) " Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the ANNEXURE-A representation dated 21.02.2023 made by the Petitioner. 2) Grant any other relief in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the permissions which have been requested of by the petitioner from Respondent No.1, have not been issued despite the representation having been made on 21.02.2023 at Annexure – A. 3. On an earlier occasion when the matter was taken up, learned AGA was called upon to secure instruction and to make his submission as to whether there is any particular Form for making such an application. Today, on instructions, it is submitted that there is no particular Form, but, however, along with the representation made to Respondent No.1, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43386 WP No. 16496 of 2025 certain other permissions not having been enclosed, the same could not be considered. 4. Even if that be so, it was for Respondent No.1 to consider and reject the representation of the Petitioner by giving necessary reasons. Respondent No.1 could not have kept the application pending for more than three years without taking any action on account of the representation not being accompanied with necessary documents. 5. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. A mandamus is issued directing Respondent No.1 to pass necessary orders on Annexure-A within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56