Smt B Yasmeen vs The Commissioner on 5 June, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt B Yasmeen vs The Commissioner on 5 June, 2013

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                         1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

         DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF JUNE, 2013

                         BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

              WP NO 44582 OF 2011[LB-RES]
BETWEEN

SMT B YASMEEN
W/O MOHOMMAD RAFFIULLA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT 3RD CROSS
J C R EXT, GOPALAPUR ROAD
CHITRADURGA
                                      ... PETITIONER
(By Sri : P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV. )

AND

1.THE COMMISSIONER
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHITRADURGA

2.THE COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPALITY
CHITRADURGA

3.SMT SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE DR. K. NIJALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                               2




R/AT 335, 9TH MAIN, 2ND C CROSS
BANGALORE-38
                                                 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : R S RAVI, ADV. FOR R1
    Sri : S.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2
    Sri : B.K.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO             QUASH
ANNEXURE G ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AND ALSO
HOLDING SAME IS ILLEGAL AGAINST LAW WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' group this
day, the court made the following:

                              ORDER

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the communication dated 24.11.2011, Annexure-G issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner as to why steps should not be taken to demolish the illegal construction put up by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the impugned letter dated 24.11.2011, Annexure-G is only a show 3 cause notice. If that is so the petitioner to treat the impugned letter as show cause notice and to file his objections within a time frame of four weeks from today. Thereafter the first respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders. In the event of any adverse order being passed against the petitioner, then he is entitled to work out his remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

DKB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court