IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8806 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
RAVEENDRA KOLLE S/O. LATE GAJANAN GANAPATI KOLLE AGED 66 YEARS R/A. NO.46, “JAI KAMAKSHI”
1ST A CROSS, MODEL LIC COLONY WEST OF CHORD ROAD BASAVESHWAR NAGAR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 079. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV.) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA REP. BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR SOUTH ZONE KSIMC BUILDING INDUSTRIAL ESTATE RAJAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHEOLOGIST THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA DHARWAR CIRCLE BEHIND SAHITYA BHAVAN NEAR R.N. SHETTY STADIUM DHARWAD-580 008.
3. THE CONSERVATION ASSISTANT THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA BHATKAL SUB-CIRCLE, UTTAR KANNADA BHATKAL-581 320.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT DC OFFICE COMPOUND KARWAR-581 301.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BHATKAL SUB-DIVISION AC OFFICE COMPOUND BHATKAL-581 320. …RESPONDENTS (BY A.S.G. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A. FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 02.12.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-“A”) AND IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 13.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-“B”) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Subramanya R., learned counsel for petitioner. Learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents No.1 to 3. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the notices dated 02.12.2016 and 13.10.2016 issued to the petitioner under Rule 38(1) of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959.
4. When the matter was take up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be granted the liberty to file an objection with regard to the aforesaid notices and the competent authority be directed to decide the objection preferred by the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner files an objection to the aforesaid notices within a period of ten days from today, the competent authority shall decide the objection preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by a speaking order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST