Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    M/S. Manjunath Bore Wells No. 56, 15Th Cross, 6Th A Main J.C Nagar, Kurubarahalli Bangalore - 560 086 Rep. By Its Proprietor Sri. B.C Ramakrishna v. M/S. Maruthi Bore Wells No. 2013, Nisarga Nilaya C-Block, Sahakara Nagara Bangalore-560 092 Rep. By Its Proprietor Sri. Chinnappa Reddy

    ORDER

    Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 1 ana 2. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.

    2. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the letter dated 07.08.2013, 07.08.2013 and 30.07.2013 impugned at Annexures-A, A1 and A2 to the petitions. The petitioners are also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondent No. 2 to consider the applications dated 31.12.2012, 31.12.2012 and 02.01.2013 at Annexures-B, B1 and B2 to the petitions.

    3. The case of the petitioners is that they being the proprietors of M/s Manjunath Borewells, M/s Maruthi Borewells and M/s Saibaba Rock Drillers respectively, are carrying on the business of drilling the Borewells with their vehicle bearing Nos. TNN 3276, AP-29-C-2266 and TN-25-C-0489, respectively. In that regard, the petitioners are stated to have applied seeking permission for registering their agencies. The request of the petitioners has been rejected by the impugned communication dated 07.08.2013, 07.08.2013 and 30.07.2013 at Annexure-A, A1 and A2 to the petitions.

    4. A perusal of the impugned communications would indicate that the only reason disclosed therein is that the petitioners have not responded to the notice and have not produced the necessary documents for consideration of their case. Since, the said rejection has been made on the said ground, in any event opportunity requires to be provided to the petitioners to produce all the documents and a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners needs to be issued. In the instant case, the petitioners contend that subsequent to the rejection vide letter dated 07.08.2013, 07.08.2013 and 30.07.2013, the petitioners by their applications dated 31.12.2012, 31.12.2012 and 02.01.2013 have produced all the necessary documents and the said applications are still pending consideration.

    5. In order to enable consideration of the said applications, the impugned communications dated 07.08.2013, 07.08.2013 and 30.07.2013 are quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the applications dated 31.12.2012, 31.12.2012 and 02.01.2013 as per law. If any further documents are required, the petitioners shah produce the same before respondent No. 2.

    6. In order to enable expeditious consideration, the petitioners shall now furnish a copy of this order along with additional documents if any, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the said applications as per law within two weeks from the date on which the copy is furnished.

    In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    M/S. Manjunath Bore ... v. M/S. Maruthi Bore We...
    (Jan 10, 2014)