SMT.MAMATA C MESTRI vs. THE REGISTRAR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/200194/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC03001239201712 July 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission of the University that they would consider the representation within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Court directed the University to consider the representation and pass necessary orders within eight weeks.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, an Assistant Librarian, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct Gulbarga University to consider her representation dated 28.11.2016. She did not press other prayers made in the petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the University should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation. The primary issue was the consideration of a pending representation by the respondent authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 227

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. MAMATA C. MESTRI DR. SURESH SHIVARAJ JANGE

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH ON THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.200194 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MAMATA C. MESTRI W/O PRAVEENKUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN (S.G.) GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, KALABURAGI R/AT NO.41, VISHVESHWARAIAH NAGAR “DHANESHWARI NILAYA” OPP: INCOME TAX OFFICE SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI ... PETITIONER (BY SRI I.R. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR, GULBARGA UNIVERSITY KALABURAGI – 585 106 2. THE SYNDICATE OF GULBARGA UNIVERSITY KALABURAGI – 585 106 BY ITS CHAIRMAN & VICE-CHANCELLOR 3. DR. SURESH SHIVARAJ JANGE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DEPUTY LIBRARIAN GULBARGA UNIVERSITY KALABURAGI – 585 106 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY

2 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-1 ... RESPONDENTS (SRI A. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION DATED 28.11.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE–L AND TO TAKE SUITABLE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider her representation vide Annexure-L, dated 28.11.2016. She does not press the other prayers made by her. 2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that if reasonable time is granted, the first respondent will consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Law.

3 3. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is noted. The petition is disposed off. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with Law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- JUDGE LG

More judgments on Section 227

All 314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 227 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →