Disposed

Sree Banni Mahankali Temple v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2020WP/144630/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of two writ petitions filed to quash a notice for unauthorized construction and seek mandamus to consider replies. The court directed the municipality to consider the replies and pass orders within 15 days without precipitative action.

What did the court decide?

Immediate quash of impugned notice; respondent to consider replies and pass orders within 15 days; stay of precipitative action.

Sree Banni Mahankali Temple Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 25^th day of February 2020

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

Writ Petition No.144630 of 2020 & W.P. No.144836 of 2020 (LB-UC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SREE BANNI MAHANKALI TEMPLE ISR ROAD, CHITTAWADIGI HOSAPETE, DIST : BALLARI REP.BY ITS TRUSTEE, SRI.VINOD KUMAR MISHRA

¶8

M/S.THE INDIA SUGARS & REFINERIES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI.VINOD KUMAR MISHRA AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC : EMPLOYEE, REGD. OFFICE & FACTORY AT CHITWADGI-583201 HOSAPETE, DIST : BALLARI. ...PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE & SRI. RAJENDRA R.PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDA, BENGALURU

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSPETE, DIST : BALLARI ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA R1 SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

¶15

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. NASAHO: KANDAYA: 2019-20 DATED 13/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPLIES DATED 17/02/2020 AND 18/02/2020 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS MARKED AT ANNEXURE D & E RESPECTIVELY.

¶16

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice bearing No.NASAHO:KANDAYA:2019-20 dated 13.02.2020 at Annexure-A and for a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.2 to consider the replies dated 14.02.2020 and 17.02.2020 at Anenxures-D & E respectively.

¶19

With the consent of the learned counsels for

¶20

the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶22

and the learned counsels for the respondents.

¶23

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice, dated 13.02.2020, at Annexure-A stating that there is unauthorized construction on the road and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to remove the unauthorized construction on the road, park and public places, the petitioner is prima facie found to have constructed unauthorized construction and hence, the petitioner is directed to produce the relevant documents relating to the property within 5’O Clock of 13.02.2020 failing which, it is stated that they would initiate action in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have submitted replies on 14.02.2020 and 17.02.2020 to the respondent No.2-Municipality. It is the grievance of the petitioners that without considering the replies/objections filed to the notice at Annexure-A, the respondent No.2 may take action to demolish the building.

¶25

Learned Counsel, Sri Gangadhar J.M.,

¶26

appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the

¶27

¶28

respondent No.2 would consider the replies filed by the petitioners at Annexure-D and E dated 14.02.2020 and 17.02.2020 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶29

Taking note of the submission of the learned

¶30

counsel for the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the replies/objections of the petitioners at Annexures-D and E dated 14.02.2020 and 17.02.2020 to the notice at Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that till the orders are passed considering the replies/objections of the petitioners, no precipitative action shall be taken in pursuance of Annexure-A notice dated 13.02.2020. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Kms

Sree Banni Mahankali Temple v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Banni Mahankali Temple v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Jayaram Shetty Vs Nawab S/O Gousemohiddin Chavadi

Arjun S/O Satba Lohar Vs the State of Karnataka

Padmavati Automotives Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Shankarappa Nagappa Alur Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Appanna Vannur Vs the State of Karnataka

Suzlon Global Services Ltd., Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner