Dismissed

The Commissioner v. Dhammanagi Developers Pvt. Limited

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2020WA/7021/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge's order dated 08.12.2015 was considered infructuous because the prior direction to issue a modified sanction plan was effectively complied with (via rejection) and related contempt proceedings were dropped. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed as infructuous without independent analysis.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as infructuous; interim applications disposed.

The Commissioner Vs Dhammanagi Developers Pvt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

¶8

W.A.No.7021 OF 2017(LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002. 2 . ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, [TOWN PLANNING,] BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY T.H. AVIN FOR APPELLANT 1 AND 2 ….APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K. N. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . DHAMMANAGI DEVELOPERS PVT. LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. BABU DHAMMANAGI NO.137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020

¶13

¶14

2 . MR. SHANTALINGAYYA BASAYYA MATHAPATI S/O. SRI LATE BASAYYA S. MATHAPAI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION, ADVOCATE NO.157 “KIRTHI”, 4TH CROSS, BDS LAYOUT, HEGDENAGARA BENGALURU-560 077. 3. MRS. MADHURA P. S. W/O. SATISH H AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.113, 1^ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, OPP. MARIYAPPA TEMPLE, KATHRIGUPPA VILLAGE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. 4 . MR. B. V. JAGADISH S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.2127/5, 9^TH MAIN D BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 092 5. MR. B. V. LOKESH S/O. B. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.754, 13^TH MAIN, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023. ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. M. G. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. M.V. SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. SHASHANK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2015 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 19787/2013 [LB-BMP] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

¶17

¶18

OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.19787/2013 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J . , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal has been rendered infructuous inasmuch as

¶22

the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has been complied with by the appellants on 02.07.2018. The appellants have considered the application of respondent No.1 and have rejected the request for issuance of occupancy certificate as well as modified sanction plan. He therefore, submits no purposes would be served in considering this appeal any further.

¶23

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record.

¶24

¶25

We have perused paragraph No.11 of the

¶26

impugned order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.19787/2013, which reads as under:

¶27

“ In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-M is quashed. A direction is issued to the BBMP to issue the modified sanction plan in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is however made clear that the issuance of occupancy certificate by the BBMP would be only subject to the petitioner satisfying the fire safety measures to be installed in the fourth floor.”

¶28

(Underlining by us)

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike submits that, the direction issued as above being complied with inasmuch as the request for issuance of modified sanction plan and also issuance of occupancy certificate by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike having been rejected, accordingly, the said direction is complied with. Further in C.C.C.No.423/2017, the contempt proceedings

¶30

¶31

initiated by the respondent No.1 against the appellants herein has also been dropped noting the compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge.

¶32

In the circumstances, submission of the learned

¶33

counsel for the appellants that there has been consideration of the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and also the fact that the said direction having been complied with, no purpose would be served in further considering the matter, is placed on record.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶35

It is needless to observe that if respondent No.1 is aggrieved by the refusal of the request made by respondent No.1, it can assail the same in accordance with law.

¶36

¶37

In view of the disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid terms, I.A.No.1/2017 and 2/2017 would not survive for consideration and the same are also stand disposed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PSG*

The Commissioner v. Dhammanagi Developers Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Dhammanagi Developers Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Maheshwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.N.Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sunil Monteiro Vs the Managing Director & Appellate Authority

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Anusuya

M/S. Robo Silicon Ltd. Vs Smt. Padmashree R

Sri.J.N.Prathapa Simha Vs State of Karnataka