IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR REVIEW PETITION No.296/2019 IN WRIT PETITION No.23560/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI M G SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NRUPATHUNGA CIRCLE ROAD, MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA-572132 2. SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O M G SRINIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NRUPATHUNGA CIRCLE ROAD, MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA-572132 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI NATARAJ R, ADV.) AND 1. M V SRINIVASMURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH R/AT HIGH SCHOOL CIRCLE ROAD, MADHUGIRI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 003.
3. THE CHIEF OFFICER MADHUGIRI MUNICIPALITY, MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572132 4. NATIONAL HIGH-WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:16/07/2019 PASSED IN WP NO. 23560/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners.
2. This review petition is preferred on the ground that no notice was ordered to respondent Nos.4 and 5 despite the allegations being directed against them and that action is sought against them. That the review petitioners had also preferred another writ petition in W.P.No.29011/2019 and in the said writ petition, this Court has been pleased to grant an interim protection.
3. That this Court after hearing the petitioner therein and the learned counsel for the official respondents was pleased to direct that the action be expedited to stop further construction and process the action initiated within an outer limit of four months.
4. Learned counsel for the review petitioners place on record the copy of the interim order granted by this Court. The interim relief came to be granted on the premise that the Municipality having failed to process the application for sanction plan within the stipulated time, the petitioner is entitled to deemed sanction of the building plan under the provisions of Section 187 (5)(a) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners would invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-A captioned as ‘Intimation letter’. By the said letter, petitioner No.1 has been intimated about the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition which is sought to be reviewed.
6. This Court while disposing the writ petition has recorded the submission of the petitioner that there is no sanction plan and that there is failure on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to discharge their duty of consideration and disposal of the representation made by the petitioners and has proceed to dispose of the writ petition by directing the official respondents to expedite the process of action in accordance with law. There is no positive direction to demolish nor the Court has adjudicated the correctness or otherwise of the rights of the review petitioners to put up construction.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no ground is made out warranting interference or to review the order dated 16.07.2019. It is open for the petitioners to state their case and set out the defence by way of a detailed reply to the intimation letter. It is clarified that this Court by order dated 16.07.2019 disposed of the writ petition by directing action in accordance with law only. In that view of the matter, no further review of the order is necessary.
Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main review petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR