LOKESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order (Annexure-A) bearing No.ADM 03/HHD/51/15-16 dtd. 8/2/2016.

(2.) Heard Adinarayan, learned counsel for Sri D.S. Mali Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri A.G. Gururaja, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is working as Parapathadar at Sundar Anjaneya Temple, Indiranagar, Bangalore. Earlier his father Sri Puttarangappa was working as an Attender in the 3rd respondent-Office. After retirement of his father the petitioner is said to have made representation dtd. 19/11/2015 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents requesting for re-allotting/continuing the petitioner in the quarters bearing No.88, Raya Raya Kalyana Mantapa. It is submitted that 2nd respondent had recommended to the 3rd respondent for re-allottment of the quarters to the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering petitioner's representation allotment was made in favour of the 4th respondent vide Annexure-A dtd. 8/2/2016.