IN TI-IF HIGH COL’RT OF IU-\RNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15 DAY UP JUNE. 2W 1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JHSTICE A.S.BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.6 Qj2O 10 LB-REj BETWEEN: PRABHU 5/0 SHANKERAPPA MAGENNAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS. 0CC: BUSINESS AND VRIcLITI. RE R 0’ PM \QEV\AER COMPLE\ N ERRU MARKET, DHARWAD - PETITIONER (BY SRI, B.K.MALLIGWAD, ADV.) AND: 1 THE COMMISSIONER. HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPALITY CORPORATION, O HA RWA D 2. SRi. HAMIDKHAN MAHABOOBKHAN KHAJI, AGE: 66 YEARS. 0CC: STOVE REPAJRER, F u D’IC DABB\N() 1Gb \EHTJR Mi\RKET. DRARWAD. 3. SRI. ISMAILSAB S/O HASANSAB GODESAVAR. ML (10 FRS uc DRNINC 1 \ URK R/O NEW STAR TAILORS, NEHRU MARKET, DHARWAD. 4. SRi. RHAMARUDDiN 5/C) PAHIMUDDIN BIJAPUR, AGE: 52 YEARS. 0CC: PAN SHOP. F I,DRI\GCENIRE\\Dm\T 1 QT\G MATERIALS, NEHRU MARKET. DHA RWAI... (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADU. FOR R1( THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE CORPORATION I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REMOVE THE DUBBA SHOP VALID ARE JUST TOUCHING TO PETITTONER BUILDING AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent-Corporation to remove the petty shops, which is said to be touching the building belonging to the petitioner. 2. Several contentions have been urged in the instant petition whereunder the petitioner claims right for peaceful enjoyment of the commercial building which has been put up and is contending that the petty shops in front of the shutters is causing obstruction and the same has to be removed. However, what requires to be noticed is that the petitioner was before this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P. No. 62763/09 (LB-RES) putting forth similar contention. This court while disposing of the writ petition on 03.09.20 10 had noticed that the so called representations said to have been filed by the petitioner had not been placed on file and therefore liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate fresh representation within 15 days from the date of the order and had directed the first respondent to consider the same after hearing the respondent no. 2 to 4 therein. The petitioner is presently before this Court contending that despite the representation having been made. subsequently, the respondents have not considered the same. 31:. Learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the petitioner in fact has not made any representation pursuant to the order dated 03.09.20 10 passed in W.P. No. 62763/2009. The representation now referred by the petitioner is made by one Surendra 4 Shankrappa Mannigeri and his relationship with the petitioner has not been pointed out. Therefore keeping these aspects in view, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the first respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the representation, the first respondent shall hear respondent no. 2 to 4 herein and pass a considered order on the representation, one way or the other as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 8 weeks from the date on which the representation is made to the first respondent. 4 It is needless to mention, if the respondents while considering the representation agrees with the contention put forth by the petitioner, needful action shall be taken by the first respondent in accordance with law. I 4. N 5. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of, No order as to costs, Sd! JUDGE bvv ASKJ ()idr in \\ P. No. (N7U () it) Sri. AS Pati I. learned counsel to acc.ept. notice for respond.ent flU. and Ii Ic \alcalath viihin a peiid ol Ibur weeRs. Notice to respondent no. and a is unnecessar\ at this staae,considerinu the nature of disposal. Sd/ JUDGE