Sri Ramesh vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 6 March, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ramesh vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 6 March, 2013

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

            DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MARCH 2013

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

                 W.P.NO.11534/2013 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

1.    SRI RAMESH
      S/O SRI S NARAYANA
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2.    SMT N BHAGYALAKSHMI:
      W/O SRI RAMESH
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

      BOTH APPELLANTS ARE
      R/A NO.29, 1ST MAIN ROAD
      GAYATHRINAGAR
      NAGAPPA BLOCK
      BANGALORE-560021                   ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI K RAGHAVENDRA RAO & V VIDYA, ADVS)

AND

1.    THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      AEE OFFICE, MALLESHWARAM WARD
      11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
      BANGALORE-560003

2.    THE COMMISSIONER
      BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      N R SQUARE
      BANGALORE-560002               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADV.,)

     THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO HEAR I.A. NO.I FILED BY THE
                                 2


PETITIONERS UNDER REGULATION NO.13 OF THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S ACT AND PASS SUITABLE ORDERS
IMMEDIATELY, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND
ETC.,

      THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Sri B.V.Muralidhar, learned counsel to accept notice for respondents-1 and 2 and file vakalat in the registry in four weeks.

2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to the 3rd respondent to hear on I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioners under Regulation No.13 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act and pass suitable orders immediately.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the order passed against them under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short the 'KMC' Act), have preferred the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short the 'KAT') in Appeal No.942/12. In the said appeal, the petitioners have also filed an application seeking stay of the execution of the order for demolition. The respondents herein have filed their objection statement and the matter had been 3 adjourned. In such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking consideration of I.A.No.1 in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in any event the application has not been disposed of by the respondents and in fact it is pending inasmuch as no orders have been passed.

5. In the light of the above, since the only question for consideration is the nature of consideration of I.A.No.1 by the KAT, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into any further details relating to remand. Insofar as disposal of I.A.No.1, in any event, the KAT would adjust its Board to consider and dispose of the application as per its schedule. However, all that is necessary is to protect the interest of the petitioner till the KAT takes a decision on I.A.No.1 one way or the other in accordance with law.

6. Hence, the respondents are directed not to execute the order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act until the KAT takes a decision on I.A.No.1 in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE TL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court