IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.29568 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SRI K.V.AKSHAY, S/O LATE K.V.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.220/15/1, 5TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHASHIDHARA H N, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BASAVANAGUDI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU – 560 004.
3. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WARD NO.154, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 004. ... RESPONDENTS (BY ARAVIND M NEGLUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 05.07.2019 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 321(1) OF THE AND 321(2) OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND B AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
02. Learned counsel Sri. Aravind M.Neglur accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Copies of the writ petition is furnished to the learned counsel and the same is acknowledged.
03. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing No.24/1, Police Station Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, acquired by his father under a registered Sale Deed dated 04.06.1992 and that the property acquired was a residential house allegedly constructed in the year 1978-79. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the construction had got old and for optimal utilization of the property, the petitioner carried out repair and renovation work and alteration of the interior walls and has completed all renovation work also and the property is also assessed to tax as a commercial premises. While so, the respondents had issued a notice under Section 308 calling upon the petitioner to produce the building licence. It is submitted that, no licence is obtained, as the work carried out was merely a renovation work and involved demolition of the interior partition walls, which had withered on account of passage of time. It is further submitted that, this Court in several matters has held that no licence is required for renovation work as the same do not fall within the ambit of section 320 and that the said ruling is also brought to the notice of the authorities by way of reply dated 10.07.2019. That despite the same, the authorities are threatening to issue a final order for demolition.
04. It is seen that the petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the notice under Section 321(1) and 321(2) and that the petitioner has also submitted a detailed representation and has placed reliance on this Court’s judgment reported in 1995(4) KLJ 694 and 1996(2) KLJ 312B. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition is premature. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents may act arbitrarily. It is the presumption that, the State will always act in consonance with law.
05. In that view of the matter and in view of the apprehension of the petitioner, it is directed that the respondents shall before passing the final order, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the rulings in respect of which the reliance is placed in the representations.
06. The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ