IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 54524/2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
Sri. P. Raju S/o Sri. Ponna Poojari, Aged about 44 years, Occupation: Business, R/a No.9-4/2, 6th Cross, Masjid Road, Old Okalipuram, Bengaluru-560 021.
…Petitioner (By Sri. T.K. Suresha, Advocate - Absent) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Director, Town Planning Authority, M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001.
3. Sri. Susheel Kumar, S/o Father name not known, Aged about 55 years.
4. Sri. Noorulla Khan, S/o Father name not known, Aged about 50 years.
Respondents No.3 and 4 are Rep. by its Managing Partners, M/s Navakar, a register Partnership firm, R/at, No.22/1, Madarsab lane, Cottonpet, Bengaluru.
5. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Rep. by the Commissioner, N.R. Square, J.C. Road, Bengaluru-560 002 6. Bengaluru Development Authority, Rep. by the commissioner, Kumara Park west, Sankey Road, Bengaluru- 560 020.
...Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.5 to initiate suitable legal proceedings against the respondents No.3 and 4 by invoking the provision of under Section 321 of KMC Act 1976 in relation to the W.P. “B” schedule property in terms of the demand made by the petitioner as per the annexure-I and J, since the entire construction put up by the respondents No.3 and 4 is in utter violation of the license and sanctioned plan after giving opportunity to the respondents No.3 and 4 to contest such proceedings initiated by the respondents No.5 after inspection of the W.P. “B” schedule property, hold the necessary enquiry as provided for under Section 231 of KMC Act of 1976 and pass the necessary orders therein with reference to the reliefs of the sanctioned plan and the license sanctioned by the respondent No.5 in favour of the respondents No.3 and 4 and compare the same with the present nature of the building which is apartment that is being constructed by the respondents No.3 and 4 on the W.P. “B” schedule property and dispose of the above W.P. in accordance with law.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R It is noticed that though Writ Petition was filed on 02.12.2017, till date there has been no compliance of office objections.
2. There was no representation for the petitioner on 23.10.2019 and 29.11.2019, when the matter was called out. Again today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Taking note that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings, petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE NS