Disposed

Sri. Nandan Murthy @ N Murthy v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024WP/16638/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to quash an order dismissing an appeal against a BBMP Preliminary Order. The Court held the remedy lies against the Confirmation Order and directed the authority to furnish a certified copy and defer coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

The petition disposed of; liberty to approach third respondent for certified copy of Confirmation Order; respondents to defer coercive measures for 8 weeks.

Sri. Nandan Murthy @ N Murthy Vs the Chief… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41301 WP No. 16638 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16638 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. NANDAN MURTHY @ N MURTHY S/O LATE KUPPASWAMY. AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO. 41. 1^ST MAIN ROAD, RAMACHANDRAPURA, WARD NO-95 OKALIPURA, BANGALORE-560021.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SURESH.P.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BBMP, WEST ZONE, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -560003.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, GANDHI NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, DR. TCM ROYAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560053.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:41301 WP No. 16638 of 2024

¶19

FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE CASE NO.208/2023. B) DIRECTION OF APPROPRIATE NATURE TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/05/2024 IN APPEAL NO.208/2023 (BBMP) ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The Chief Commissioner, BBMP [the first respondent] has dismissed the petitioner's appeal in No.208/2023 under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act' ] by the impugned order dated 18.05.2024 [Annexure-A]. The first respondent has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the petitioner has called in question a Preliminary Order under the provisions of Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act but not the Confirmation Order under Section 248(3) thereof.

¶24

Sri. Suresh. P, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner filed his

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:41301 WP No. 16638 of 2024

¶27

response on receipt of the Preliminary Order but is not informed of the Confirmation Order and as such, he has filed the subject appeal calling in question the Confirmation Order. Sri. Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who is called upon to accept notice, is heard for disposal of the petition.

¶28

Indisputably, the petitioner's appellate remedy would only be against a Confirmation Order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, and if the petitioner is not served with such order, the appropriate recourse, inter alia , was to apply for a certified copy of the same before approaching the competent authority in exercise of the statutory remedy. This Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent for a certified copy of the Confirmation Order, if any, and to avail statutory appellate remedy thereafter so that there is complete

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:41301 WP No. 16638 of 2024

¶31

adjudication. Further, to ensure that interests are balanced without precipitation, the respondents must be called upon to defer all coercive measures pursuant to Confirmation Order, if there is such an order, for a reasonable period. Hence, the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

a. The petition stands disposed of reserving

¶34

liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent - the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP - for a certified copy of the Confirmation Order, if there is any pursuant to the preliminary order dated 27.01.2022 in No.Sa. Ka.Ne.Aa/Ga/P.R./630/2021-22;

¶35

b. The third respondent is directed to issue a certified copy of the Confirmation Order after due compliance by the petitioner within a four [4] weeks, and if there is no Confirmation order as aforesaid, to inform

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:41301 WP No. 16638 of 2024

¶38

the petitioner accordingly also within the

¶39

said period of four [4] weeks.

¶40

c. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file appropriate application enclosing a certified copy of this order with the third respondent within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶41

d. The respondents are directed to defer coercive measures for a period of eight [8]

¶42

weeks from today if there is a

¶43

Confirmation Order.

¶44

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶45

Sri. Nandan Murthy @ N Murthy v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nandan Murthy @ N Murthy v. the Chief 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

Nanjesha Vs State of Karnataka

Akash Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital Vs Dr.Sanjay Murgod

Gulmohar Mansion Apartments Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Range Forest Officer / Tree Officer

Devaraj Gowda Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt Basamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner