Karnataka High Court
M.A.Sadiq Ali vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.14648/2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M.A. SADIQ ALI
S/O LATE ABDUL JALEEL,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O NO.1796, T.A.P.C.M.S. ROAD,
HUNSUR TOWN-571105,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUMAN HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE - 570 001.
3. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY,
HUNSUR-571 105,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
2
4. SMT. IQBAL BEGUM,
W/O. LATE ABDUL KHAYUM,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/O. NO.274, MARIYAM MANZIL,
9TH CROSS ROAD,
AGA GARDEN SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G. NARENDAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI M.V. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADV. FOR R4;
R3 SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 21.09.2013 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-H AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER
THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER DIRECTION
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.5755/2011 TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT & PASS NECESSARY ORDER IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
W.P.No.5755/2011 filed by respondent No.4 herein against the petitioner and two others seeking quashing of the order dated 07.12.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore and for implementation of a resolution dated 23.09.2006 of the Town Municipal Council, Hunsur, Mysore District was heard and disposed of on 01.12.2013, vide order as at Annexure-D. The 3 petitioner herein, who was the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition was granted with the liberty of assailing the resolution dated 23.09.2006 of the Town Municipal Council, Hunsur, in accordance with law. A time limit of eight weeks for assailing of the said resolution was fixed. It was made clear that if the said resolution is not assailed within the said period and the fact of assailing is not brought to the notice of the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Hunsur, he should give effect to the resolution unless any restraint order or legal impediment is pointed out with regard to the implementation. Taking note of a communication dated 21.09.2013 as at Annexure-H, sent to the 3rd respondent, this writ petition was filed to quash the said communication and consider the objections filed by the petitioner before the Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Hunsur and pass necessary orders.
2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the writ petition record. 4
3. Point for consideration is, whether the petitioner has acted in terms of the order as at Annexure-D, which has attained finality?
4. Smt. Suman Hegde, learned advocate, submitted that a representation vide Annexure - E was submitted to the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hunsur and objections vide Annexure - F was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, on 16.04.2013. She submitted that in view of the Annexures - E & F, the 2nd respondent is unjustified in directing the 3rd respondent, to act in terms of the order passed vide Annexure-D.
5. In the order passed vide Annexure-D, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to assail resolution dated 23.09.2006 of the Town Municipal Council, Hunsur, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Specifically it was made clear that, if the petitioner herein fails to assail the said order within the said period and bring to the notice of the Chief Officer of 5 Town Municipal Council, Hunsur, the restraint order or legal impediment, if any, the 3rd respondent has the obligation to implement the said resolution.
6. Smt. Suman Hegde is unable to point out from the record, the petitioner having assailed the resolution dated 23.09.2006, in accordance with law i.e., in terms of the order as at Annexure-D. Annexure-E is a copy of representation dated 15.03.2013 submitted to the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hunsur. Annexure-F is a copy of the statement of objections filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore, not to give effect to the aforesaid resolution of the Town Municipal Council and to rescind the same.
7. Petitioner has not assailed the said resolution in the manner contemplated under law i.e., under S.306 or under S.322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and within the time allowed in the order at Annexure-D. In the circumstances, the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hunsur, is bound by the mandamus 6 issued in the order at Annexure-D. The communication sent by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-H, being in conformity with the order at Annexure-D, the same does not warrant interference.
The mandamus sought as against 3rd respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner being not in conformity with the liberty reserved to the petitioner in the order at Annexure-D, cannot be granted.
In the circumstances, petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek further order, if any, in W.P.No.5755/2011, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*