1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.44046/2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
MR. SUNIL KUMAR .K AGED 32 YEARS NO.2674, HAL III STAGE DIAGONAL ROAD BENGALURU - 75.
(BY Mr. SWAROOP ANAND, ADV., FOR Mr. V. RAMESH BABU, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 02.
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR DIVISION INDIRANAGARA 1ST STAGE BENGALURU 38.
(BY Mr. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADV.,) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH LEGAL NOTICE DTD.30.6.2017 VIDE ANNEX-C. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION TO THE PETITIONER. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO TAKE BACK THE FURNITURE AND FITTINGS SITUATED IN THE PREMISES BEARING NO.902, 1ST B CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. Swaroop Anand, Adv. for Mr. V. Ramesh, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. T.M. Venkata Reddy, Adv. for Respondents 1. Mr.V.Krishna, Asst.Executive Engineer, Jeevan Bhima Nagar Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, and Dr.K.Sangamithra, In-charge Medical Officer of C.V.Raman Nagar, Bengaluru, are present in the Court as summoned by the previous order dated 13.12.2017. However, they were unable to produce any record before this Court showing issuance of any notice or order against the petitioner for seizure of the premises in question.
2. The grievance made by the petitioner in the present case who filed this writ petition in this Court on 20.09.2017 with the following prayers, is that the Respondents-BBMP Authorities have illegally seized the premises in question of the petitioner without initiating any proceedings against the petitioner or without passing any order against the petitioner.
3. The prayers made in the writ petition are quoted below for ready reference:-
“(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to comply with legal notice dt:30/06/2017 produced at Annexure C.
(ii) Direct the respondents to pay the cost of this Writ Petition to the petitioner.
(iii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice”.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Swaroop Anand has submitted that since no order or notice was issued against the petitioner by the Respondent-Authorities of the BBMP, the Advocate for the petitioner has served a notice vide Annexure-C on 30.06.2017, which was duly received by the addressee namely the Commissioner, BBMP and Asst.Executive Engineer, BBMP, Indiranagar, Bengaluru and Acknowledgment Due Receipts bearing Signatures of Respondents dated 04.07.2017 are produced on record vide Annexure-D.
5. On the last occasion i.e., on 13.12.2017, this Court has passed the following order:-
“1. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Swaroop Anand for the petitioner submits that the 2nd Respondent-Asst.Executive Engineer, Jeevan Bhimanagar Division, Indira Nagar, 1st stage, BBMP, Bengaluru, has seized the business premises of the petitioner-landlord without serving any notice upon the petitioner and orally, he was informed that the notice was issued to the tenant of the petitioner, who has already vacated the premises in question and no such notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which empowers the Commissioner to require an alteration of the work or construction to fall in line with the sanction plan was never served upon the petitioner- landlord.
2. Despite query from the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that no such notice or document was ever served upon the petitioner before suddenly effecting the seizure of the property in question and this has resulted in the position that the tenant who has already vacated the premises not being allowed to take away his own movables from the said premises in question.
3. The matter would require consideration by this Court.
4. Issue notice to the Respondents.
Mr.T.M.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents- BBMP.
5. By the next date, the 2nd Respondent- Asst.Executive Engineer, Jeevan Bhimanagar Division, Indira Nagar, 1st stage, BBMP, Bengaluru, will file his personal Affidavit explaining the situation and also particularly as to why without any notice to the petitioner or his tenant, why the property in question has been seized without adjudicating the matter at all.
If such response and Affidavit is not filed before the next date, the concerned official will remain present before the Court on the next date.
Put up the matter again on 15.12.2017”.
6. Today, though the Officials of the Respondent- BBMP have appeared before the Court but they were unable to produce any record before the Court for perusal to show that any such proceedings have culminated or any order against the petitioner has been passed, so as to effect the seizure of the premises in question.
7. In view of this, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is at liberty to remove the seal or seizure of the premises in question and go ahead with the removal of the contents of the tenant in question and use the premises in accordance with law.
8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.