IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.64708 OF 2016 (LB - RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.SUSHMA MANMOHAN MALLY S/O MANMOHAN MALLY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROPRIETRIX ABHIMAN CONSTRUCTIONS RESIDING AT “SUSHMA”
KUNJATHBAIL, MANGALURU – 575 105. (BY SRI HARISH BHANDARY, ADV.,) AND:
... PETITIONER 1. MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION LALBAGH MANGALURU – 575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING PROJECT MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION LALBAGH, MANGALURU, DK – 575 003.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 01.10.2016 MADE IN NO.E/BA 05/2010-11 (EDIS) BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Office to show the name of Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty, as Counsel appearing for the respondents. Petitioner’s counsel submits that a copy of the writ petition has been served on him as he is one of the Standing Counsel for respondent - Mangaluru City Corporation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. During the course of submission, they have brought to my notice order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2672/2013 dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure-K) and they submit that this writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
4. In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed endorsement dated 01.10.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-A) and a direction is sought to the first respondent to consider the application dated 02.06.2012 for issuance of revised building license and sanction plan in respect of apartment constructed by the petitioner in Kodialbail A Village, Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.
5. It is noted from order dated 30.01.2013 passed in the aforementioned writ petition that this Court has not quashed a similar endorsement which was assailed in that writ petition. However, a direction has been issued to consider the application in accordance with law even though the appeal was pending in that case.
6. It is stated even in this case, there is an appeal pending. In the circumstances, it is held that the quashing of the impugned endorsement is not necessary, but the respondents are directed to consider the representation at Annexure-B dated 02.06.2012 made by the petitioner in accordance with law de hors the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondents shall consider the application independently and without prejudice to the contentions which may be putforth in the appeal. The said consideration shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Sri Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel is permitted to file Vakalathnama, within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE ca