Mr Rajesh Jain Vs Commissioner

MR. LAKSHMI JANARDHANA @ K.N. LAKSHMI JANARDHANA S/O. N NARAYANA IYENGAR C/O K GOVIDARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, REP.BY M/S.SRINIVASA BAKERY, PROPRIETOR, SHOP NO. 12.

¶12

MR. INTHYAZ PASHA S/O. LATE ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, REP. BY M/S. SHOE BAZAAR PROPRIETOR, SHOP NO. 38, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED)

¶13

MR.K.B PRASAD S/O. K PARAMESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, REP. BY M/S. BALAJI TRADING CO PROPRIETOR, SHOP NO. 10, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED)

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶16

ALL PETITIONER'S SHOPS HAVING AT COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BANGALORE ROAD, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DT-577 522.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

COMMISSIONER

¶21

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.

¶22

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522 REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. G K BHAVANA., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DTD. 18.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-A1 TO A4 BEARING NUMBERS AS FOLLOWS. 1. BEARING NO. NA.CHA/KM.SHA/AM.MA/SI.R/NO13/2024-25, 2. BEARING NO. NA.CHA/KM.SHA/AM.MA/SI.R/NO12/2024-25, 3. BEARING NO.NA.CHA/KM.SHA/AM.MA/SI.R/NO38/2024-25, 4. BEARING NO. NA.CHA/KM.SHA/AM.MA/SI.R/NO10/2024-25.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners are challenging the notices issued to

¶32

them by which they have been called upon to vacate and hand over the possession of the shops, which are in their possession.

¶33

Since the said structures were in a dilapidated condition, the notices indicate that they have been issued in exercise of powers under Section 230 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, ‘ the Act ’).

¶34

Section 230 of the Act reads as follows -

¶35

“230. Buildings or rooms in buildings unfit for human habitation.—(1) If, for any reason, it shall appear to the municipal council that any building or any room in a building intended for or used as a dwelling is unfit for human habitation, the municipal council shall give to the owner or occupier of such building notice in writing, stating such reason, and signifying its intention to prohibit the further use of the building or room, as the case may be, as a

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶38

dwelling, and shall in such notice call upon the owner or occupier aforesaid to state in writing any objection thereto within thirty days after the receipt of such notice; and if no objection is raised by such owner or occupier within such period as aforesaid, or if any objection which is raised by such owner or occupier within such period appears to the standing committee invalid or insufficient, the municipal council may by an order in writing prohibit the further use of such building or room as a dwelling.

¶39

(2) When any such prohibition as aforesaid has been made, the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer shall cause notice of such prohibition to be affixed to, and the letters “U.H.H.” to be painted on the door or some conspicuous part of such building or room, as the case may be; and no owner or occupier of such building or room shall use or suffer the same to be used for human habitation until the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer certifies in writing that the building or room, as the case may be, has been rendered fit for human habitation.

¶40

(3) The municipal council may further at its discretion serve upon the owner of the building a notice requiring him within such time not

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶42

being less than thirty days as may be specified in the notice to execute the works of improvement specified therein and stating that in its opinion those works will render the building fit for human habitation. In addition to serving a notice under this section on the owner, the municipal council may serve a copy of the notice on any other person having an interest in the building whether as a lessee, mortgagee or otherwise.

¶43

(4) In determining whether a building can be rendered fit for human habitation at a reasonable expense regard shall be had to the estimated cost of the work necessary to render it so fit and the value which it is estimated that the building will have when the works are completed.

¶44

As could be seen from the above, if it is the case of the Municipality that if the buildings are in dilapidated condition, they are required to issue a show-cause notice calling upon the occupants to submit the reply within 30 days.

¶45

However, the impugned notices do not indicate that the procedure prescribed under Section 230 of the

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶48

Act has been followed. In fact, the notices go on to straightaway state that the petitioners are required

¶49

to vacate and hand over the possession.

¶50

The Municipality has entered appearance and filed its objections and has stated so in para 9 of its counter which reads as follows –

¶51

“9. Without prejudice to the contentions taken above, if this Court comes to conclusion that the petitioner ought to have been granted time to submit their reply under Section 230 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the respondents hereby consents to treat the notice dated 18.12.2024 as notice under Section 230 and permit the petitioner to submit their reply within the 30 days of the disposal of this petition and the respondent undertakes to pass orders thereafter in accordance with law after considering all the materials placed before the respondent Authority by the petitioner in furtherance to the structural stability report issued by PWD Department.”

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶54

It is, therefore, clear that the Municipality has now consented that the orders that have been passed and which are impugned in this Writ Petition shall be treated as show-cause notice and the petitioners would be permitted to file the reply within a period of 30 days from the date of disposal of this Writ Petition and they have also undertaken that they would pass orders in accordance with law after considering all the materials placed before it.

¶55

In the light of the above, the impugned orders shall be treated as show-cause notices by the petitioners and they shall file their objections within a period of 30 days.

¶56

On such objections being filed, the respondents shall consider the objections and also the materials that the petitioners may place regarding the stability of the structures in question and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶59

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶61

HNM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶65

[MR RAJESH JAIN AND OTHERS VS. COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER]

¶66

05.03.2025

¶67

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶68

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶69

ORAL ORDER ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶70

This writ petition was disposed of directing that the impugned orders shall be treated as show-cause notice and permitted the petitioners to file objections to the said show-cause notice.

¶71

Learned counsel points out that, during pendency of the writ petition, the BESCOM authorities had disconnected the electricity and, therefore, it would be essential that a direction be issued to the BESCOM to restore the electricity connection.

¶72

In fact, in a similar matter, this Court after disposal of the writ petition, noticing that the electricity has been disconnected, directed the BESCOM to restore the electricity connection.

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:6138 WP No. 4111 of 2025

¶75

In the light of the order passed in W.P.No.4105/2025, it would also be appropriate to direct the BESCOM to restore the electricity connection even in this writ petition

¶76

also.

¶77

Sd/( N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶78

GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mr Rajesh Jain v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rajesh Jain v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rashtriya Academy Education Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Lavakusha Transport Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Lava Kusha Transport Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.K.Anasuyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Virupakshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Skyline Manor Apartment Owners Association Vs the Commissioner