IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.2790/2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. T.G. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O SRI T.A. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SMT. T.G. ADILAKSHMAMMA W/O T.A. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 3. SHRI T.G. MAHESH S/O SRI T.A. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SHRI T.S. NAVEEN S/O SRI T.A. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT:
NO.23, OBAIAH LANE COTTONPET CROSS BENGALURU-560053 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI VISHWANATH VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. HUSNA KHANUM W/O SRI ZAFAR ULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.154 NALBAND WADI 9TH CROSS RANASINGH PET POLICE ROAD BANGALORE-560053 2. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP BANGALORE 560 002 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMRAJPET SUB-DIVISION BBM, J.C. ROAD WARD NO.139 BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2019 AND 12.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 26386/2019.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The first impugned order is dated 24th June 2019. The appellants are the third to sixth respondents in a writ petition. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’) to submit a status report with regard to the allegations set out in Annexure-A to the writ petition, which is the representation made by the writ petitioner. The second impugned order dated 12th July 2019 refers to the affidavit filed by an Engineer of the BBMP in which he has stated that there are deviations. By the second impugned order, the Engineer has been directed to submit a status report detailing the deviations and also the action that has been taken. Obviously, an action has to be taken by the BBMP in accordance with law.
2. If any action is initiated by the BBMP, the appellants can always challenge the same in accordance with law.
3. We do not see how the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned orders. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that subsequently, the learned Single Judge has passed an interim order. If that be so, the appellants can always adopt the remedies in accordance with law.
4. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
The pending interlocutory application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv