IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.4341/2019 (LB - RES) Between Sri S Venkataramu s/o late Shivappa aged about 67 years r/a Suhas Nilaya Kuvempunagara Hassan – 573 201. .. Petitioner (By Sri Madhusudhan M N, Advocate) And 1. The Regional Commissioner High View, Vinoba Road Opposite Kalamandir Mysore – 570 005.
2. The Commissioner Hassan City Municipal Council N R Circle, Hassan-573 201.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Hassan City Muncipal Council N R Circle, Hassan-573201. .. Respondents (By Sri Subramani M A, HCGP, for R1, Sri A Ravishankar, Advocate for R3) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R1 to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 19.1.2019 as expeditiously as possible which is produced vide Annexure-G.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court passed the following: -
ORDER The petitioner was a party to an earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.1674/2019, which came to be disposed of by order dated 11th January, 2019, wherein the petitioner was permitted to challenge the order dated 10.1.2019 before the Revisional Authority as provided under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. While disposing of the said writ petition, there was a direction that the order impugned would not be given effect for a period of two weeks.
2. The petitioner is stated to have filed a revision petition initially before the Directorate of Municipal Administration and subsequently after noticing that the Revisional Authority is the Regional Commissioner, revision petition has been filed before the Regional Commissioner on 19.01.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revision petition has not been taken up for consideration so far. The petitioner states that there is an urgency to consider his prayer for interim relief and apprehends that the Appellate Authority may go ahead with demolition pursuant to its earlier order, which is now impugned before the Revisional Authority.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 states that the said appeal itself would be taken up and also disposed of expeditiously and hence in the light of the said submission, appropriate direction could be passed. It is further contended that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without waiting for the matter to be taken up before the Regional Authority.
4. Learned counsel for Municipal Authority submits that if the petitioner is directed to co-operate for disposal of the proceedings, the Municipal Authority would also put in appearance before the Revisional Authority and co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the revision petition. He further submitted that if continuing protection is given to the petitioner, it would seriously prejudice the efforts of the Municipal Authority to reduce traffic congestion and enforce building line and several regulations .
5. After having heard the counsel for both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the present matter could be disposed of by providing time, within which the revision petition would be disposed of by the Regional Commissioner. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for expeditious disposal of the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Hassan City Municipal Counsel, which is also a party in the proceedings initiated under Section 322 of the Act is directed to appear before the Regional Commissioner without waiting for any notice. The parties are directed to appear before the Regional Commissioner on 29.1.2019 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting for notice from this Court.
7. In the light of the fact that the parties being aggrieved would co-operate for final disposal of the appeal itself, the Regional Commissioner is directed to take up the matter and dispose of the same on merits after affording reasonable opportunity. The whole consideration of revision petition is required to be concluded within a period of three weeks from today.
8. In the light of the direction made, the City Municipal Council is not to take any action pursuant to the order dated 10.1.2019 till disposal of the main petition.
9. Normally this Court would have made a direction to the Regional Commissioner to consider the interim prayer, but in view of the submission made by the counsel for both sides, that the petition would be itself disposed of, the Regional Commissioner is directed to consider and dispose of the petition itself.
10. The counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner would ensure that he would be no parking in front of the building and would instruct the tenants to take necessary steps to ensure that there is no parking on the main road. The said submission is placed on record.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm