IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.5415 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
A. MUNEGOWDA SON OF AKKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT NO.73, 7TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.
(BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHALAKSHMIPURAM SUB-DIVISION, ... APPELLANT BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WARD NO.68, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.
3. B. VENKATESH SON OF BETTAIAH @ BETTE GOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.3/1, 7TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.57228 OF 2014 (LB-BMP).
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26-07-2017 in Writ Petition No. 57228 of 2014, dismissing the writ petition as being infructuous, the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. The plea of the appellant is that that even though the 3rd respondent has put up construction without any sanction plan, respondent – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, is not taking any action. The submission was made before the learned Single Judge that a sanction plan has been issued in favour of the 3rd respondent, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as being infructuous.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. The existence of sanction plan or otherwise requires to be considered before any proceedings could be initiated or dropped. The specific case of the appellant is that there is no clear stand by the respondent – Corporation with regard to such deviation. Under these circumstances, we deem it just and necessary to direct the respondent - Corporation to consider the representation of the appellant and pass appropriate orders with regard to the deviations if any. That such an order will be passed as expeditiously as possible after hearing the appellant.
Writ appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-