IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6086 OF 2016 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
SMT. RAMANABAI LAMANI W/O SOMAPPA LAMANI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.OLD NO.18, NEW NO.559, 26TH MAIN ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. ... PETITIONER (By Sri D.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 3. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DASARAHALLI NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT- 560 057.
5. THE CHAIRMAN SCREENING COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1,R2, R4 & R5; SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 10.11.2014 (ANNEXURE-R1), DATED 02.01.2015 (ANNEXURE-R2), DATED 05.02.2015 (ANNEXURE-R3), DATED 11.01.2016 (ANNEXURE- R4) PASSED BY THE R-3 (BDA AUTHORITY).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri D.Gangadhara, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Vijaykumar.A.Patil, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5.
Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner interalia seeks to quash the notices dated 10.11.2014, 02.01.2015, 05.02.2015 and 11.01.2016 issued by Respondent No.3 under Sub- Section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner can raise objections to the aforesaid show-cause notices and the competent authority be directed to decide the objections preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be granted liberty to file objections to the aforesaid show-cause notices and the competent authority be directed to decide the same.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in facts of the case, it is directed that, incase, if the proceedings are still pending before the competent authority, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file the objections before the competent authority and the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such objections, shall decide the matter, after hearing both the parties, by a speaking order in accordance with law.
It is needless to state that depending upon its decision, the competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dh