Writ petition challenging the rejection of a request to extend an expired No Objection Certificate (NOC) for constructing a cinema theatre. The Court held that extension was not required; petitioners must file a fresh application.
Petition disposed of; relief of extending the NOC denied; directions given for expeditious consideration of fresh applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P.No.102461/2016 (C)
Between
All R/o Door No.1659, 1660, Opp. Govt. Hospital, Banhatti Town, II Division, Banhatti, Tq: Jamkhandi, Dist: Bagalkote.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. S.S.Beturmath, Advocate)
A n d
2
Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Vinayak S.Kulkarni, Addl. Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned endorsement MAG/CNM/CR-25/2007-08/6440/1 dated 09.11/12.2015 issued by respondent NO.2 vide Annexure-O; and direct the respondents to extend time of NOC as per Annexure-L dated 26.04.2010 for a period of two years for construction of cinema theatre from the date of disposal of this wit petition.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Group, this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
writ petition with the following prayers:
3
4
expired and therefore, it had spent itself. Petitioners after the disposal of the writ petition made a representation on 05.10.2015 with a prayer to extend the ‘no objection certificate’ issued by the 2nd respondent on 26.04.2010. The said prayer has been rejected by the 2nd respondent vide his order dated 09.11/12.2015 which has been questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
would submit that ‘no objection certificate’ has been issued
5
earlier considering the application filed in the prescribed form as provided under the statute and, if at all, the petitioners require fresh ‘no objection certificate’ to construct the cinema theatre, it is always open to the petitioners to file a fresh application and the same will be considered in accordance with law. He submits that since ‘no objection certificate’ issued to the petitioners considering their earlier application has already expired, there is no question of renewing the same, more so, having regard to the challenge made to the said ‘no objection certificate’ in W.P. No.66270/2010.
6
renewal of said ‘no objection certificate’. The 2nd respondent has rejected the said representation with an observation that in the event of petitioners filing a fresh application in a prescribed form as provided under the statute, the same would be considered in accordance with law. I find no illegality or irregularity in the said endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent which is impugned in this writ petition. Since the earlier ‘no objection certificate’, which was issued to the petitioners was subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P. No.66270/2010 and this Court having dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the said ‘no objection certificate’ has expired by itself, the question of the 2nd respondent extending the period of said ‘no objection certificate’ does not arise. It is for the petitioners to file necessary application before the 2nd respondent afresh in the prescribed form, as provided under the statute, seeking ‘no objection certificate’ and if such an application is filed, the 2nd respondent is required to consider the same in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
However, in the event of petitioners filing necessary application in the prescribed form as provided under the statute,
7
the 2nd respondent shall consider the said application as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2017
does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Kms
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner was required to extend the No Objection Certificate (NOC) previously issued to the petitioners.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to a renewal of the expired NOC without filing a fresh application.
Whether the rejection of the petitioners' representation for NOC extension was legal and regular.
Shankar, S/o Chandrashekhar Karalatti
Rajendra, S/o Shashikant Karalatti
Sanjay, S/o Shashikant Karalatti
Ramesh, S/o Shashikant Karalatti
State of Karnataka
Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote
S.Vishwajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
