IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.48382 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. SHARATH S S/O. G.S. SHIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS NO.27, APOORVA LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BEHIND IIPM BANGALORE-560 072.
… PETITIONER (By Mr. VASANTH KUMAR H.T. ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING VIKASA SOUDHA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD 1ST FLOOR & 3RD FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009 REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y.D. HARSHA, ADV., FOR R1 Mr. H.N. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R2) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned cancellation order vide Annex-A dated 27-01-2016 issued by R-2 for terminating the allotted site bearing No.1713 HIG-1, Sector-B, Suryanagara project at Igluru, 2nd stage under the discretionary quota, Bannahalli, Bangalore Urban District and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Sri.H.N.Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the cancellation order dated 27.01.2016 issued by the second respondent terminating the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
3. A perusal of the order dated 27.01.2016 impugned herein would disclose that the cancellation has been made since according to the second respondent, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was not in terms of the Circular dated 24.01.2013. At the time of hearing, the letter dated 05.11.2014 addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent is referred wherein it is communicated that the Circular dated 24.01.2013 has been withdrawn by the said letter. If that be the position, the second respondent relying on the very same Circular while passing a subsequent cancellation order on 27.01.2016 will not arise. Therefore, the very basis on which the communication is issued would not be justified.
4. Hence, the impugned cancellation order dated 27.01.2016 is quashed. If there is any other requirement to be complied, the second respondent may thereafter intimate the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV