IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.5105/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
Pramod Kumar K.S., S/o Late K.S. Sreekantegowda, Aged about 37 years, R/at Marigudi Beedhi, K.R.Pet Town, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District – 571 426. ... Petitioner (By Sri B. Roopesha, Advocate) And:
The Chief Executive Officer, Krishnarajpet Town Municipal Council, Krishnarajapet Town & Taluk, Mandya District – 571 426. ... Respondent (By Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2019 issued by the respondent in canceling the permission granted to install the water purifier in Marigudi Street, Agarahara, K.R.Pet Town, vide Annexure-E, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner states that he is a permanent resident of K.R. Pet Town and had sought to install Reverse Osmosis (R.O.) Plant at his cost for the benefit of the local residents in memory of his father and mother.
2. The petitioner states that he made a representation to the CEO of the K.R. Pet Town Municipal Council as per Annexure-A. The petitioner states that subsequently the permission was also granted as per Annexure-B on 6.12.2018 by the Chief Executive Officer. Consequent to permission at Annexure-B, the petitioner had made all arrangements to install the RO Unit. However, as per Annexure-E, the respondent has cancelled the said permission and stated that necessary decision has to be taken in the General Meeting.
3. The petitioner states that a decision was taken as per Annexure-E and that there was no notice to the petitioner and that the petitioner has already invested for the purpose of procuring the R.O. unit. Taking note of the fact that petitioner is seeking to install the R.O. unit at his own cost for the benefit of the local residents, the Town Municipal Council to take note of laudable object with which the petitioner has come forward and to place the proposal of the petitioner before the General Meeting for the purpose of appropriate decision at the earliest.
4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to place the proposal before the Town Municipal Council and take appropriate decision. The cancellation of the permission given being without notice to the petitioner, is set aside. It is to be noted that pursuant to Annexure-B, the petitioner has acted to his detriment.
5. However permission given would be subject to the decision to be taken in the General Meeting of the first respondent.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp