IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.1683 - 1684 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. K.C. Puttaswamy Gowda Aged about 62 years, S/o Chikke Gowda, Proprietor “Hotel Sri Krishna”
B.M. Road, Hassan – 573 201.
2. Smt. Deveereamma Major in age, W/o Sri. K.C. Puttaswamy Gowda, Having address as “Hotel Sri Krishna”
B.M. Road, Hassan – 573 201. …Petitioners (By Sri. K. Suman, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner City Municipal Corporation, Hassan – 573 201. ...Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R-1 Sri. A. Ravishankar, Advocate for R-2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash/set aside the notice/order dated 10.01.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 (i.e., Annexure-A) as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and without jurisdiction.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners of the immovable property bearing No.107, situated at B.M. Road, Hassan and have filed the present writ petitions challenging the order dated 10.01.2019 at Annexure-A, which is said to have been passed in exercise of power under Section 187(9)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for brevity). The said order has been assailed on various grounds. However, the enquiry into the legality of the said order would require consideration of certain factual aspects, which is best left to be considered before the alternative forum for legal redressal provided under the Act, 1964.
2. Section 322 of the Act, provides for a revisional remedy before the Director of Municipal Administration.
3. In light of the nature of contentions raised, the petitioners are at liberty to avail of the alternate remedy under Section 322 of the Act, as regards their grievance against the order at Annexure-A.
4. The petitioners are granted two weeks’ time to initiate necessary proceedings, if so advised, under Section 322 of the Act as against the order at Annexure-A as per law.
5. The order at Annexure-A would not be given effect for a period of two weeks.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of subject to the above observation.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM