IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.51224 OF 2019 (LB-BBMP) BETWEEN:
SRI Y.C.SANDEEP REDDY, S/O Y.C.RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 1010, 26TH MAIN, 4TH STREET BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
(BY SRI. CHIDANANDA.P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . THE HEALTH OFFICER, BTM RANGE, BBMP BUILDING, 16TH MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 076.
(BY SRI. K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DT.12.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-G; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is the apprehended coercive action by the respondent-BBMP pursuant to the impugned notice dated 12.11.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G and which reads as under:
¢£ÁAPÀ:12-11-2019 £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï «µÀAiÀÄ: ªÀ¸Àw ªÀ®AiÀÄ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV G¢ÝªÉÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1) ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ D¥ÀÛ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉåÃ: ¦.J¸ï.Dgï/©-695, ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-1-2017.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¸ÀA¢Ã¥À gÉrØ, PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ®, £ÀA.678, 6 ‘J’ PÁæ¸ï, 3£Éà ¨ÁèPï, «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è GzÀݪÉÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà ªÀ¸Àw ªÀ®AiÀÄ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ªÁtÂdå ZÀlĪÀnPÉ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»ÃgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä G¢ÝªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß KPÉ gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ F £ÉÆÃnøï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV °TvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ¸À°è¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ vÀ¦àzÀ°è PÉ.JA.¹.PÁAiÀÄzÉ 1976gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀªÀÄä G¢ÝªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÅ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
2. The petitioner has filed his reply dated 19.11.2019, on 20.11.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-H. The petitioner apprehends that the notice arguably being in a cyclostyle, and giving only three days to reply, coercive action may be taken abruptly after rejecting the reply and sans intimation of the decision thereon, to him so that he may not avail the legal remedies forthwith there.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents. I have perused the petition papers.
It is needless to mention that the respondent-BBMP and its officials being an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, they are expected to be fair and reasonable and therefore are not to take any precipitatory action against the petitioner till after a decision on his reply is made and fifteen days lapse after the same is informed to him.
It is necessary to clarify that no decision shall be taken in the subject matter by the jurisdictional officials of BBMP without hearing the petitioner or his agent, since stakes are heavy.
The writ petition is disposed off accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS