D.RAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed with prayers to quash Annexure-G dtd. 2/12/2020 in so far as it relates to re- consideration of the applications for allotment of sites of the applicants whose allotments have been held to be illegal and to quash the Government Order dtd. 30/7/2021 at Annexure-J in so far as it relates to rejecting the recommendations of respondent no.3 in Paragraph 72 (xxvi) and (xxviii) and also the consequential relief of writ of mandamus directing re-allotment of sites after considering the applications made for allotment in respect of sites available after excluding sites which are legally allotted, and further a writ of mandamus is sought to direct respondents 1 & 2 to initiate disciplinary action against respondents 5 to 17.

(2.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and also perused the material on record.

(3.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are, petitioner had filed a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging illegal allotment of sites in Atal Bihari Vajpayee Layout, Shivamogga, by respondent no.4-Development Authority. Pursuant to a reference made by the Government of Karnataka under Sec. 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, respondent no.3 has submitted a report on 2/12/2020 holding that out of 1,305 allotments, only 498 allotments were legal and the remaining 807 allotments were illegal, and respondent no.3 had further observed in its report that the applications of the allottees whose allotment was illegal would be re-considered for allotment of sites, if they submit necessary documents for curing the illegalities. Respondent no.3 had also recommended for initiating disciplinary action against respondents 5 to 17. The State Government, vide its order dtd. 30/7/2021 has accepted the report of respondent no.3 in so far as it relates to the recommendation relating to re-consideration of applications for allotment of sites, but rejected the recommendation for taking disciplinary action against respondents 5 to 17. It is under these circumstances, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.