IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 1814 OF 2019 (LB - RES) Between:
Devaraja. K S/o. Kariyappa, Aged about 36 years, Proprietor of Beereshwara Welding Shop, Behind RMC, Sridhara Nagara, Sagara – 577 401 Shivamogga District. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Pruthvi Wodeyar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District, Shivamogga – 577 401.
3. The Director of Planning, District Urban Development Cell, O/o. Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga – 577 401.
4. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Sagara – 577 401 Shivamogga District. ... Respondents (By Sri. M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R1 & R2) **** This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 10/10/2018 passed by the R-3 vide Annexure-J and order dated 07/11/2018 dated 07/11/2019 by the R-4 vide Annexure-L and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he is permitted to file memo of appearance.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order at Annexure – L dated 07.11.2018, whereby the licence issued to the petitioner came to be cancelled in exercise of power under Section 256 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”). It is seen that there is a remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order under Section 343(7) of the Act.
3. Noting the adjudication as regards the order dated 07.11.2018 would involve the consideration of certain factual contentions, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the appellate authority constituted under the Act.
4. The petitioner, however, contends that the appellate authority may be directed to take note of the contention of the petitioner and come to an independent conclusion.
Accordingly, the matter is disposed of affording the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as envisaged under Section 343 of the Act within a period of two weeks from today.
In the meanwhile, the order at Annexure-‘L’ could be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE KG/KLV