IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT APPEAL NO.3175 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SMT.PRABHA RAVISHANKAR W/O SRI.RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, MUNISWAMIYAPPA LAYOUT CHIKKABANASAWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.SHYAM SUNDAR M S, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, BANASAWADI SUB DIVISION, BBMP OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560 084. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.D.DEVENDRAPPA, ADV.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/10/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP NO.40751/2018.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Matter has come up for preliminary hearing. At our request, the learned counsel, viz. Shri H.D. Devendrappa has taken notice on behalf of Respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
2. The appellant herein approached the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.40751 of 2018, calling in question the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which, after going through the material on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant might have manipulated the documents produced at Annexure-C, i.e. the alleged sanction plan. It was found that the sanction plan was not a genuine document. Therefore the appeal came to be dismissed.
3. In the grounds raised in this appeal, we find that the very same assertions that were made before the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have been made. When the Tribunal, which is a fact finding authority, has gone through the material and found that the document was not genuine and the plan was not sanctioned by the authorities of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, it is not open for this Court to go into the question of genuinty of the document.
4. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the appeal cannot be entertained, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed at preliminary stage. Consequently, IA.I of 2018 filed seeking condonation of appeal is also dismissed.
The learned counsel for the respondent is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE lnn