- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5652 WP No. 105917 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 105917 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MAHADEVAPPA BALAPPA GADEKAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVADATTI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRISHAIL SHIVAPPA MUTAGOND, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVADATTI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHIEF OFFICER/MUKHAYADHIKARIGALU PURASABHE YOJANA PRADHIKARA, SAVADATTI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5652 WP No. 105917 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Sri.F.V.Patil., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation submitted on 05.08.2018 by the petitioners vide Annexure-H and to take an appropriate decision in terms of documents produced along with the said representation. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. Counsel Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing a copy of the communication dated:14/15.11.2018 stating that the petitioners’ representation was considered and it has been duly informed to them. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5652 WP No. 105917 of 2018 The oral submission made by counsel for the respondent and the memo is placed on record. 5. The simple prayer of the petitioners is to consider their representation. A perusal of the memo reflects that the request of the petitioners to consider their representation has been considered in 2018. Hence, the petitioners’ grievance is met with. If at all the petitioners have any grievance about the communication, they are at a liberty to approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if so advised. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29