IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.56024/2018 (LB - BBMP) Between:
C.T. Venkatappa, S/o. late Thimegowda, Aged about 64 years, R/at No.57, 5th Cross, Srirampuram, Bengaluru – 560 021.
... Petitioner (By Sri. Parashuram R.Hattarakihal, Advocate) And:
1. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, & Delegated Authority for Commissioner, Srirama Mandira Sub-division, B.B.M.P., Rajajinagara, Bengaluru – 10.
... Respondents (By Sri. H.Devendrappa, Advocate) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.176/2015 at Annx-A on I.A. for extension of interim order and consequently allow the said application at Anex-D and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel Sri. H. Devendrappa, accepts notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Two weeks time is granted to file memo of appearance of the respondents.
3. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.11.2018, whereby the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘KAT’ for short) has rejected the application filed seeking extension of the interim order and set out the matter on 09.01.2019 for arguments on the main petition.
4. The facts as made out in the petition is that the respondents-Authority has passed an order under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ for short) whereby demolition of the deviated portion of the building was ordered. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the KAT by way of an appeal filed under Section 443(1)(i) of the Act. The petitioner had also filed an application under Regulation 13 of the KAT Regulations, 1979 and sought for interim order of stay of the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act. The KAT granted an ex-parte interim order on 10.03.2015 directing both the parties to maintain status-quo and the said order had been extended from time to time even after the appearance of the respondents. The matter was called on 29.11.2018 on which date, the petitioner filed an application for extension of interim order. The KAT rejected the said application stating that the petitioner was required to have gone ahead with the arguments and having not done so, rejected the application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that records from the respondents-Authority which were necessary for the purpose of disposal of the appeal were not received and hence the matter was being adjourned from time to time and in fact, a warrant was issued to secure records on 03.07.2018 and matter was adjourned to 23.10.2018 and that only on 23.10.2018, the records were secured and the matter was adjourned to 29.11.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 29.11.2018 as a result of inability to go ahead with the matter on the said date, an adjournment was sought for and the KAT has rejected the said request. He further states that adjournments earlier granted was only for the reason that records were required for disposal of the appeal were not obtained and not for reason attributable to the petitioner and hence the petitioner contends that the adjournment sought for ought not to have been refused.
7. Noticing that the records have already been received and the matter is posted to on 09.01.2019 for arguments on the main petition and learned counsel for the petitioner and the BBMP states that they are ready to go ahead with the matter. It would be appropriate to direct expeditious disposal of the appeal itself. Taking note of the apprehension of the petitioner that order under Section 321(3) of the Act could be executed, it would be a fit case to direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal itself expeditiously. The order impugned herein being an interim order, it would not be appropriate to get into the merits of the matter at this stage as the appeal is set out for arguments on the main petition.
8. Both the counsel state that they would co- operate in the disposal of the appeal. Hence, it is expected that KAT would take up the matter and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, in light of the fact that records have been received and the matter is ripe for hearing.
In light of said submissions and observations made above, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SN/KLV