Disposed

Sri Uday Kumar C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2021WP/9944/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest writ petition filed against the State and municipal authorities ordering initiation of proceedings and action regarding alleged building construction violations in Mysuru. The Court directed officials to consider specific representations and pass a speaking order, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents Nos.2 to 4 directed to consider representations made by petitioners and pass a speaking order thereon.

Sri Uday Kumar C Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.9944 OF 2020 (LB-RES/PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.UDAY KUMAR C.

¶11

SON OF LATE B.CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4728, 1^ST CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA MYSURU-560 007.

¶12

STEFANO PEREIRA

¶13

SON OF LATE.VICTOR PEREIRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.591, 4^TH CROSS ST.MARYS ROAD N.R.MOHALLA MYSURU-560 007.

¶14

SRI.MAHADEV

¶15

SON OF LATE.SIDDAMALLPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.399, DD BLOCK, HUDCO LAYOUT BANNIMANTAPA

¶16

MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT-560 024.

¶17

MOHAN KUMAR SON OF MAHADEV

¶18

¶19

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.596 60^TH CROSS, RAILWAY ROAD BOGADI MYSURU-570 026.

¶20

SRI.SHARATH P. SON OF PAPANNA S. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4585 GANESHA TEMPLE ROAD N.R.MOHALLA MYSURU-570 026.

¶21

... PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI:CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE (VC))

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA CHAMARAJPURA MYSURU-570 024.

¶26

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER RANGE VIII, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU-570 007.

¶27

THE URBAN PLANNING OFFICER MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSURU-570 024.

¶28

SRI.NOOCHIKATTE SON OF NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.4619 NO.L-37 & 37/1 SHIVAJI MAIN ROAD

¶29

¶30

... RESPONDENTS

¶31

N.R.MOHALLA MYSURU-560 007.

¶32

(BY SMT:VANI H., AGA FOR R1; SRI: MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 321(1) OF THE KMC ACT IN RESPECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN PROPERTY BEARING NO.76 AND 85, SHIVAJI ROAD, NR MOHALLA, MYSURU BY RESPONDENT NO.5 AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS; DIRECT THE COMMISSIONER – CITY CORPORATION TO TAKE ACTION IN PURSUANCE TO THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 19/02/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-J KEEPING IN MIND THE APPARENT VIOLATION AS INDICATED IN THE NOTICE DATED 04/01/2020 AT ANNEXURE-E AND THE LETTER/REPORT BY RESPONDENT NO.4 – URBAN PLANNING OFFICER DATED 19/03/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE SUITABLE ORDERS; ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/03/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND REPRESENTATION DATED 05/03/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

This writ petition is stated to be filed in public interest. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the prayers sought in the writ petition, which read as under:

¶37

¶38

“WHEREFORE, the petitioners most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for relevant records; and

¶39

(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate proceedings under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act in respect of the construction of the building in property bearing Nos.76 and 85, Shivaji Road, N R Mohalla, Mysuru by the 5^th respondent and to pass appropriate orders;

¶40

(ii) Direct the Commissioner – City Corporation, to take action in pursuance to the communication letter dated 19/02/2020 as per Annexure-J keeping in mind the apparent violation as indicated in the notice dated 22/07/2019 vide Annexure-B, the 2^nd show cause notice dated 04/01/2020 at Annexure-E and the letter/report by he 4^th respondent – Urban Planning Officer dated 19/03/2020 as per Annexure-M and to pass appropriate suitable orders in the interest of justice.

¶41

(iii) Issue direction to the official respondents to consider the representation dated 06/03/2020 vide Annexure-L and

¶42

¶43

representation dated 05/03/2020 vide Annexure-K in the interest of justice and equity.

¶44

(iv) Pass any other consequential order or directions as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court to meet the ends of justice.”

¶45

In substance, the grievance of the petitioners is

¶46

that they have made representation dated 06/03/2020 (Annexure-L) and another representation prior to that on 05/03/2020 (Annexure-K). Those representations have not yet been considered.

¶47

It is the case of the petitioners that there is violation committed by respondent No.5 in putting up the construction on the property bearing Nos.76 and 85 of Shivaji Road, N R Mohalla, Mysuru. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to issue directions to the respondents having regard to the prayer sought in the writ petition.

¶48

¶49

We have considered the prayers sought in the writ petition. We note that the sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the alleged violation in putting up construction by respondent No.5 in property bearing Nos.76 and 85, Shivaji Road, N R Mohalla, Mysuru. If that is so, respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation made by the petitioners as per Annexure-L in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order thereon.

¶50

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

*bgn/-

Sri Uday Kumar C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Uday Kumar C v. 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

Smt Megashree G N Vs Harshath S

Sri. a. C. Manohar Vs Smt. S. Latha

Sri D Nagarjuna Vs Sri B Gurumurthy

Sri Ningappa P. Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H R Ramesh Vs M/S Janapada Seva Trust

K.L.Ranjitha Vs the State of Karnataka