Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 47927 (KAR)

MRS MONTHI HILDA CUTINHA v. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION

WP/47143/2018 · 2026-02-02

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5785 WP No. 47143 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 47143 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MONTHI HILDA CUTINHA W/O LATE MR.FRANCIS JOSEPH CUTINHA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT D/NO.14-1-54/1 PATROHANE KARANGALPADY MANGALURU-575 003 (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) REPRESENTED BY HER PA HOLDER MRS.SELMA MARIA D PAULA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O LATE FRANCIS JOSEPH CUTINHA FLAT NO.12, HARI KEERTHI APARTMENTS SHIVABAGH 2ND CROSS, KADRI MANGALURU-575 002 2. MRS.SELMA AMRIA D PAULA D/O LATE FRANCIS JOSEPH CUTINHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.12, HARI KEERTHI APARTMENTS, SHIVABAGH 2ND CROSS, KADRI MANGALURU-575 002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5785 WP No. 47143 of 2018 AND: 1. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION BALALBAGH MANGALURU-575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR 2. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MANGALURU-575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.N.NITHISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS REQUIRING R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.9.2018 AT ANNEXURE-E AND DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.3.2008 FILED BY LATE. FRANCIS CUTINHA FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION AT ANNEXURE-A. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5785 WP No. 47143 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs: The petitioners pray that the Hon'ble court may pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus requiring the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 11.09.2018 at Annexure 'E' and dispose of the application dated 24.03.2008 filed by Late. Francis Cutinha for regularization of unauthorized construction at Annexure 'A' in accordance with Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances this case. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation dated 11.09.2018 at Annexure-E which has been submitted to the second respondent as also the application dated 24.3.2008 for regularization of unauthorized construction at Annexure-A had not been considered and it is in that background that the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2018 seeking for a mandamus. 3. Despite the petition having been pending from the year 2018, respondent no. 2 has still not taken any action on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5785 WP No. 47143 of 2018 the said representation is the categorical submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Whenever any representation is submitted by a citizen to an authority, it is required to be considered and necessary orders passed within a reasonable time either accepting or rejecting the said representation, in either case accompanied by reasons. 5. In the present case, the application dated 24.3.2008 at Annexure - A as also the representation submitted in the year 2018 has still remained unconsidered by respondent no. 2, which cannot be justified or countenanced either on law or facts. 6. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent no. 2 to consider the application dated 24.03.2008 at Annexure-A as also the representation dated 11.09.2018 at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5785 WP No. 47143 of 2018 Annexure-E and pass necessary orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4