Allowed

Sri. B.K. Ananda Kumar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2023WP/33021/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka quashed confirmation orders for construction violations. The court found violations of natural justice due to reliance on forged signatures and missing original notices, directing an enquiry and a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to reply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 12.02.2013 and 20.02.2013 were quashed. The petitioner was directed to reply to notices within seven days. The Chief Commissioner was directed to initiate an enquiry and subm

Sri. B.K. Ananda Kumar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 33021 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33021 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.K. ANANDA KUMAR, S/O. B. K. RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, TAVAREKERE ROAD, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DEEPAK B. R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE, MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N. R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BTM LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION, 16TH MAIN ROAD, BTM I STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 0.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2013 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED

¶17

¶18

WP No. 33021 of 2016

¶19

20.02.2013 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-B BY ALLOWING THIS W.P.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2013 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-B.

¶20

THIS WP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

a. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, and quash the order dated 12.02.2013 bearing No.SA.KA.NEE.AA/BTM/CO./37/12-13 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-‘A’;

¶24

b. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, and quash the order dated 20.02.2023 bearing No.SA.KA.NEE.AA/BTM/C.O./37/12-13 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-‘B’, by allowing this Writ Petition;

¶25

c. Grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit under the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, including costs, in the interest of justice.

¶26

The contention of the petitioner is that a Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short ‘the KMC Act’) confirmation order came to be passed without having served a notice under Section 321(1) informing the petitioner of construction in violation of the sanctioned plan committed by the

¶27

¶28

WP No. 33021 of 2016

¶29

petitioners. It is in that background, the original records have been called upon. Today, the original file has been placed before this Court. A perusal of the same indicates that the same contains a photocopy of Section 321(1) notice as also 321(2) notice said to bear the signatures of

¶30

the petitioners. The said signatures found on the documents do not match with the signature of the petitioner found on the vakalathnama, which has been filed. Furthermore, to the naked eye, the signature does not appear to be that of a person by the name B.K.Anand Kumar since the initials are ‘S.S.’ as shown in the said signature.

¶31

Be that as it may, the originals of the 321(1) and 321(2) notices have not been found on the file. Whenever an action is proposed to be taken under Section 321 of the Act, it is but required that sufficient opportunity is granted to the notice by issuing a notice, serving a notice on him and providing an opportunity to reply thereto, the same not having been done, I am of the considered opinion that the principles of natural justice have been violated, requiring interference at the hands of this Court,

¶32

¶33

WP No. 33021 of 2016

¶34

more so when this aspect has not even been considered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.218/2013.

¶35

It is not the first time that this Court has come across such photocopies of notices and/or signatures not matching with the noticee's name. The only inference that it give raise to is that these kinds of signatures are being fabricated at the offices of the corporation by the concerned officers, requiring stringent action to be taken against them by the Chief Commissioner of the Corporation. As such, I pass the following::

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The writ petition is allowed, the order dated 12.02.2023 bearing No.SA.KA.NEE.AA/BTM/CO./37/12-13 passed by respondent No.2 at Anneuxre-A is quashed. The order dated 20.02.2023 bearing No. No.SA.KA.NEE.AA/BTM/CO./37/12-13 at Annexure-B passed by respondent No.2 is quashed.

¶38

ii. Copy of the notices now being made available to the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to reply to the same

¶39

¶40

WP No. 33021 of 2016

¶41

within a period of seven days’ from today without waiting for a copy of this order. The same shall be considered by the respondents strictly in accordance with law by providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner.

¶42

iii. The Chief Commissioner of the BBMP is directed to initiate an enquiry into how a signature not belonging to the petitioner is found in the file relating to a notice issued on the petitioner and how the original of the said notice is not found in the file and thereafter, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶43

iv. A report to that effect to be filed before this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

v. Though the above petition is disposed, re-list on 28.07.2023 for reporting compliance.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

GJM

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri. B.K. Ananda Kumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B.K. Ananda Kumar v. the Commissioner

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 Malaprabha Sahakari Vs the Commissioner of Cane Development

Suvarnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Equity Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Smt. B P Susheelamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vikas Kothari Vs the Joint Commissioner