Karnataka High Court
M/S Nirman Shelters (B) Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.1585 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S NIRMAN SHELTERS (B) PVT LTD
NO 45, A-NN, NISARGA LAYOUT,
NEAR KOPPA GATE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
ANEKAL, BENGALURU 560083,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI V LAKSHMINARAYAN,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLIAMED)
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAKASH M.H ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. BENGALURU METROPOLITAN REGION
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA)
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER ,
OFFICE AT NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052.
3. ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
ANNA BUILDING, NO.430,
HENNAGARA GATE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560099,
REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYATH, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST-562106.
2
5. KALLUBALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU 560105,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
6. SRI. SADANAND
MEMBER,
KALLUBALU GRAM PANCHAYATH,
NISARGA BADAVANE, HARAPANAHALLI-2,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
(NOTE: THE OTHER RESPONDENTS IN
VPC APPEAL NO.9/2021-22 ARE NOT MADE
AS PARTIES AS NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT
AGAINST THEM VIDE ANNEXURE -Q)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.YOGESH D NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI.SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE R-4 IN VPC APPEAL NO.9/2021-
22 VIDE ANNX-Q AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The short grievance of the petitioner is against the Notice dated 14.01.2022 issued by the fourth respondent a copy whereof is at Annexure-Q whereby he is asked to participate in the enquiry proceedings under the provisions of Section 269(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
3
2. After service of notice, the respondents having been represented through their counsel oppose the writ petition contending that ordinarily in show cause cases, writ jurisdiction is not invokable. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that there shall be no change of entries in the katha till after the enquiry in question is accomplished.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the respondents and more particularly, fair undertaking given by the fourth respondent that there shall be no adverse order as to the entries in the Property records till after the enquiry proceedings in question are accomplished with the participation of all stake holders. An extraordinary case has to be made out for invoking the writ jurisdiction in matters like this as rightly contended by advocates appearing for the answering respondents. No such circumstance is pointed out.
In the above circumstances, this petit on is disposed off permitting the petitioner to participate in the 4 proceedings in question in terms of the impugned Notice dated 14.01.2021, within three weeks.
The enquiry in question shall go on only after the preliminary Objection as to authority/party to hold the enquiry is decided. In this regard, all contentions are kept open.
All the participants are put to notice through their counsel to participate in the enquiry proceedings in question on 04.05.2022.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv