IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 15769 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MR.ASHOK KUMAR S/O SEETHA BAI 26 YEARS, NEAR SANSKRIT COLLEGE UDUPI TOWN POST, UDUPI-1 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. KALIYAMARDHNA SRI KRISHNADEVARU OF SRIKRISHNAPURA MUTT UDUPI REPRESENTED BY ITS MATADHIPATHI H H VIDYASAGARA THEERTHA SRIPADAGALUVARU KRISNJAPURA MUTT CAR STREET, UDUPI-1 2. THE COMMISSIONER UDUPI UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTING THE UDUPI CITY MUNICIPAL COUCNIL UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI-1 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T I ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 IN M.A.NO.24/2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI VIDE ANNEX-J.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.141/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 31.01.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J, whereby the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, having allowed first respondent’s M.A. No. 24/2013 has granted a sort of injunctive relief which reads as under:
“ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
The Trial Court record discloses, construction has been made by the defendant No.2 during pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the defendant No.1 is directed to take necessary action as per the provisions of Municipal Authority Act governing the defendant No.1 report, with regard to the measures taken as per law, before the Trial Court.”
2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their respective counsel, resist the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the respondent – Municipal Body is only directed to take necessary action as per the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964 against the construction in question if there is any building law violation.
4. Even otherwise also such a power is vested in the Municipal Body by the enactment which it can exercise if the grounds do exist; however, the observations of the learned trial Judge, that the construction of the building is accomplished pendente lite, shall not prejudice the parties taking up a contra stand in the trial;
It is also made clear that before taking any action against the petitioner for the alleged violation of the building Byelaws, a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be provided.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed off, all other contentions of the parties having been kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv