IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.11387/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Smt. Purnima Kar, W/o Late Babu Lal Kar, Aged about 48 years, Residing at Flat No.A-901, Brigade Paramount, No.5, Old Madras Road, C V Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru – 560 093. … Petitioner (By Sri Harsha D. Joshi, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, J.C. Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, C V Raman Nagar Sub-Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, 1st ‘A’ Cross Road, 2nd Main Road, Kasturinagar Park, Kasturi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 043. … Respondents (By Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1;
Sri S.N. Prashanth Chandra, Advocate for R-2 & R-3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the provisional order dated 18.2.2019 passed under Section 321(1) Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 vide Annexure-G passed by the respondent No.3 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner stated to be the owner of the property bearing Municipal No.40/1-5/1 situated at Nagavara Palya, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bengaluru has challenged the validity of notice issued under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has filed a memo and has stated that the proceedings have been proceeded further and provisional order under Section 321(1) of the Act as well as the confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the Act has been passed on 12.03.2019.
3. Noticing the same, for all practical purposes, the present petition has become infructuous. It is however open to the petitioner to take necessary steps, if so advised to challenge the validity of the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act in accordance with law.
4. The petitioner however makes a submission that the notice of the order under Section 321(3) of the Act has been served. However, it would not be appropriate to comment or adjudicate on the said aspect in light of the fact that the appropriate remedy against the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act is before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 443-A of the Act.
5. However, in view of relegating the parties to avail of the appeal remedy under Section 443-A of the Act, the respondent–BBMP is directed not to take any precipitative action till 06.05.2019.
6. Keeping open the contentions of both the parties, this petition is disposed of, as no further orders are required.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR