Karnataka High Court
M/S Cauvery Super Speciality Hospital vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49112
WP No. 11157 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11157 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S CAUVERY SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL
BM BYPASS ROAD
HUNSUR
MYSORE 571105
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
RANJITHA H B
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
signed by
VANAMALA MS BUILDING
N
BANGALORE 560001
Location:
HIGH REP BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HUNSUR
MYSORE DISTRICT 571105
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
3. THE CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CORPORATION
OFFICE OF THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49112
WP No. 11157 of 2024
O ANDM SUB DIVISION
HUNSUR
MYSORE DISTRICT 571105
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P. , ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. HUNAKA/JE-
02/K.P/01/2023-24 ISSUED BY R2 DTD 01.04.24 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L; QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 10.04.24
BEARING NO. UV/HUNA/24-25/153-155 ISSUED BY R3
VIDE ANNEXURE-M1.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the notices dated 01.04.2024 and 10.04.2024 [Annexures - L and M1] issued respectively by the second and third respondents. The second respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 01.04.2024 referring to Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, -3- NC: 2024:KHC:49112 WP No. 11157 of 2024 1964 [for short, 'the Municipalities Act'] putting the petitioner on notice that it has a sanctioned plan for construction in the property Nos.4 and 5 within its limits but is putting up construction even in the third property in No.6. The second respondent has mentioned the details of the construction alleging that the petitioner has encroached a public utility area. Consequentially, the third respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 10.04.2024, calling upon the petitioner to show cause against disconnection of the electricity supply in No.HHHT
129.
2. This Court, on 18.04.2024, has granted interim order considering the petitioner's essential grievance that if the earlier notice dated 17.02.2024 under Section 187 of the Municipalities Act is issued alleging that the petitioner is continuing with the construction beyond the period of one year, the impugned notice is issued on 01.04.2024 alleging -4- NC: 2024:KHC:49112 WP No. 11157 of 2024 construction in other properties and encroaching a public utility area. This interim order is continued from time to time. The pleadings are complete. In fact, the second respondent is seeking vacating of this interim order.
3. Mr. Varun J. Patil, the learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. Spoorthi V., a learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, Ms. Geetha Devi M.P., a learned standing counsel for the second respondent, and Mr. M. S. Devaraju, a learned standing counsel for the third respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition in the light of the provisions of Section 187 of the Municipalities Act.
4. If Section 187(7) of the Municipalities Act contemplates inspection and show cause notice to rectify the construction to render the same to be in accordance with the Plan/Bye-laws, Section 187(9) thereof contemplates a Provisional Order and a due -5- NC: 2024:KHC:49112 WP No. 11157 of 2024 notice of such order to show cause against confirmation thereof and resulting in the Confirmation Order, if there is occasion for the same, leading to orders for demolition. The first notice dated 17.02.2024, as is contended on behalf of the petitioner, only refers to the construction continuing beyond the stipulated period of one year while vaguely stating that there is additional construction and the impugned notice dated 01.04.2024 is issued as afore mentioned with the details of the deviations which includes the measurement of the construction with width of the Built-up area and the height/additional floors.
5. However, this impugned notice though refers to Section 187 of the Municipalities Act, does not stipulate whether it is a Provisional Order which would require the petitioner to show cause before it is confirmed. The petitioner, because of the allegation that it has a plan for two separate buildings in two -6- NC: 2024:KHC:49112 WP No. 11157 of 2024 properties but is constructing a common building in three properties, must have due notice. This Court is inclined to interfere on this short ground noting these circumstances as also the fact that the impugned notice dated 01.04.2024 is not in accordance with Section 187(9) of the Municipalities Act.
6. This Court's interference cannot bring about a closure but must enable the completion of the proceedings with due opportunity, as is contemplated under Section 187(9) of the Municipalities Act. The learned counsels for the parties are also heard in the light of the afore. This Court must conclude that the impugned notice dated 01.04.2024 must be construed as a Provisional Order that is envisaged under Section 187(9)(a)(ii) of the Municipalities Act to offer cause against its confirmation as is contemplated under Section 187(9)(b) thereof directing the second respondent to consider the cause that the petitioner can offer and -7- NC: 2024:KHC:49112 WP No. 11157 of 2024 pass orders as are contemplated under Section 187(9)(d) of the Municipalities Act. Hence, the following:
ORDER a. The petition is disposed of reading the impugned notice dated 01.04.2024 as the Provisional Order and the notice thereof under Section 187(9)(a)(ii) and 187(9)(b) of the Municipalities Act reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a response within four [4] weeks from today and directing the second respondent to consider such representation for due orders under Section 187(9)(d) of the Municipalities Act.
b. If the petitioner fails to show cause within the time now allowed, the second respondent shall pass just -8- NC: 2024:KHC:49112 WP No. 11157 of 2024 orders as required under Section 187(9)(c) of the Municipalities Act.
c. As regards the third respondent's
impugned Communication dated
10.04.2024 [Annexure - M1], all
proceedings are deferred, subject to the final outcome as stated. d. The petitioner is directed not to put up any further construction until the order as now permitted. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB