Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kavita Podwal vs The Bbmp And Other Etc on 21 November, 2016
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre
1
ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.9 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
15924-15925/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/04/2016
in Writ Appeal Nos. 967 & 968 of 2016 arising out of WP No. 3147
of 2016 and WP No. 18596/2015 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka
At Bangalore)
KAVITA PODWAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE BBMP AND OTHER ETC Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 21/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.
Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In the impugned order dated 28th April, 2016 the High Court noted the submission of the petitioner herein that she should get an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed by the Commissioner of BBMP. This prayer of the petitioner was granted by the High Court by giving suitable direction. The grievance of the Signature Not Verified petitioner, however, is that in the aforesaid writ appeal stay Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2016.11.22 16:29:15 IST Reason: against demolition was granted in favour of the petitioner and in violation of the said stay order on 25.04.2016 the 2 respondent/Corporation had demolished the house of the petitioner. It is further pointed out that in these circumstances the petitioner had filed I.A. No. 2 of 2016 with certain prayers including the prayer that the respondent be directed to restore her dwelling house as well as electricity connection. She had also prayed for holding an inquiry into the matter. She submits that though this application was also on record on 28.04.2016 when the High Court passed the impugned order, no order was passed on the said application.
After hearing the petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for both the respondent(s), we are of the opinion that the High Court should dispose of I.A. No. 2 of 2016 as well, on merits, after hearing both the parties.
The parties shall appear before the High Court on 05.12.2016. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER