Alban George Fernandes vs Town Municipality Udupi on 20 February, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Alban George Fernandes vs Town Municipality Udupi on 20 February, 2014

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                           1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

         WRIT PETITION NO.1384/2014 (LB-RES)


BETWEEN:

ALBAN GEORGE FERNANDES
S/O RAYMAND FERNANDESE
AGED 68 YEARS
"STEFFINI VILLA"
D.NO.11-2-102 A2
KADBETTU
UDUPI - 576 101.
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.A.ARIGA, ADV.)


AND:

1.     TOWN MUNICIPALITY UDUPI
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
       UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

2.     COMMISSIONER
       TOWN MUNICIPALITY
       UDUPI - 576 101
       UDUPI DISTRICT.

3.     SRI B.MADHUSOODANA ACHARYA
       S/O LATE KRISHNA ACHARYA
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       SRI RAMA NILAYA
       GUDDE ANGADY
                           2


     POST GUDDE ANGADY
     BOMMARBETTU VILLAGE
     UDUPI TALUK - 576 101.

4.   SMT. ARCHANA ACHARYA
     W/O B.MADHUSOODANA ACHARYA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     SRI RAMA NILAYA
     GUDDE ANGADY
     POST GUDDE ANGADY
     BOMMARBETTU VILLAGE
     UDUPI TALUK - 576 101.
                             ... RESPONDENTS


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AT
ANNEXURE-C AND HOLD AN ENQUIRY AND PASS
APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.


    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                     ORDER

Mr. Alban George Fernandes, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 26.09.2013 vide Annexure-C to the 2nd respondent alleging illegal construction of an apartment building at Sy.Nos.92- 9A4B and 92-26B of Moodanidamboor Village, Udupi Taluk. Acting on the said representation, the 2nd respondent has issued a final notice dated 31.10.2013 3 vide Annexure-D to respondent Nos.3 and 4. This writ petition was filed on 03.01.2014, to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation, as at Annexure-C, hold an enquiry and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

2. Having heard Sri K.A.Ariga, learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the writ petition record, in my opinion, the 2nd respondent having taken note of the representation vide Annexure-C of the petitioner and issued the final notice vide Annexure-D on 31.10.2013, has the obligation to inspect the construction and if there is any deviation, etc., in the matter of construction of the building, should take appropriate action.

In the said view of the matter, it is unnecessary to entertain this writ petition. By permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation enclosing a copy of this order, to enable the 2nd respondent to take note of the 4 observations and act in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court