Karnataka High Court
Smt. N C Anitha W/O N K Raghunath vs State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NO.19497 OF 2011 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Smt.N.C.Anitha,
W/o N.K.Raghunath,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.71, 18th Cross,
M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 040. ... Petitioner
(By Sri C. Venkatesh, Advocate for
Sri C Shankar Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Local Administration,
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 01.
2. Town Municipal Council,
Represented by its Chief Officer,
Malur Town, Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
3. The Indian Oil Corporation,
Marketing Division,
Bengaluru Divisional Office,
Indian Oil Bhavan, No.29,
P.Kalinga Rao Road [Mission Road],
Bengaluru - 560 027.
Rep.by Manager. ... Respondents
2
(By Sri N B Vishwanath,AGA for R1:
Sri R V Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for
Law Mens Company for R2:
R3 Served but unrepresented)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash and set
aside the endorsement/order of the 2nd respondent
dated 28.5.2011 as per Annexure-N and direct the
respondent No.2 to hold enquiry in accordance with law
by providing opportunity to the petitioner to defend
herself by personal hearing and production of oral and
documentary evidence in support of her case and
dispose of the same in accordance with municipal by
laws applicable to the R2 authority and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has raised the challenge to the final notice, dated 28.05.2011 (Annexure-N) issued by the respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to stop the construction activity. It is issued, as the construction is unauthorised. The construction is taking place without the approval of the building plans.
2. Sri C.Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has invested the heavy amount into the construction of the building for 3 housing the petrol bunk. He submits that the ongoing construction activity cannot be stalled without observing the principles of natural justice. He submits that the respondent No.2 has not even issued the notice to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel further submits that the Deputy Commissioner has already given the direction for the issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate' for the establishment of the petrol bunk. He submits that the building plans (Annexure-F) have remained unconsidered.
4. Sri R.V.Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the building is being erected without there being any sanctioned building plan therefor. As the petitioner's activity is in violation of Section 187(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the respondent No.2 has rightly directed the petitioner to stop the construction. He submits that there is a brick-manufacturing factory and the furnace 4 in the vicinity of the petrol bunk in question. Therefore, in the interest of the safety of the people, it is not desirable to sanction the building and trade licence to the petitioner. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner's order is not for the issuance of the approval of the building plan, it is only in the nature of 'No Objection Certificate'; the direction is only for the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate'. He denies the receipt of the building plans at Annexure-F.
5. Sri N.B.Vishwanath, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate' is not the licence to construct the building for housing the petrol bunk.
6. Admittedly, the building plans are not sanctioned; the buildings constructed hitherto are therefore unauthorised. The respondent No.2 cannot be faulted for issuing the notice to the petitioner to stop the construction activity. Based on the Deputy 5 Commissioner's order for the issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate', the petitioner is not justified in putting up the construction.
7. This Court's interference on the ground of the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice is also not warranted because the final notice is preceded by the notice, dated 12.05.2011. In any case, the petitioner cannot justify his act of putting up the construction unauthroisedly.
8. I dispose off this petition with the following order:
(i) The challenge to the final notice, dated 28.05.2011 (Annexure-N) is rejected.
(ii) As there is some dispute regarding the submission of the building plans at Annexure-F, I direct the petitioner to submit the fresh building plans to the respondent No.2 for approval within two weeks from today.
6
(iii) If they are submitted within two weeks from today, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same within one month from the date of their receipt. While considering the petitioner's anticipated building plans, the respondent No.2 shall take into account the Deputy Commissioner's order for the issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate'.
(iv) The petitioner is directed not to add to the existing structure until and unless the anticipated building plans are approved by the respondent No.2.
(v) If the building erected by the petitioner is in accordance with the building bye-laws and if is not falling in the forbidden zone, the respondent No.2 shall also consider the regularising the same. If the standing structures are not in accordance with the building bye-laws and do not fall within the condonable range, the petitioner shall bring 7 them in conformity with the building bye- laws.
(vi) It is made clear that, no opinion, whatsoever is expressed on the safety aspect of the matter. If there is enough material on the record of the respondent No.2, it is open to the respondent No.2 to reject the anticipated building plans and to direct the petitioner to remove the building.
9. With these directions, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
10. Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, nothing survives for any consideration of IA No.1/2012 for vacating the interim order. It is dismissed as having become unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-