Karnataka High Court
Smt.Manjula vs Karnataka Power Transmission on 28 June, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
W.P.No.25961/2013 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Manjula,
W/o Sri. A.Krishnappa,
Age: 56 years,
R/at Devasandra, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore District.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Prasanna V.R., Adv.)
AND:
1. Karnataka Power Transmission,
Corporation Limited, (KPTCL)
Rep. by its Executive Engineer (Ele.),
Bangalore Major Works,
North Division, Bangalore-09.
2. The District Magistrate,
Bangalore Rural District,
Podium Block, Bangalore-01.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. N.K. Gupta, Adv. for R1
Sri. T.K.Vedamurthy, HCGP for R2)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 19.42013 passed by the 2nd Respondent
District Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore
Vide Annexure-A etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner claims that she is the owner of land measuring 2.04 acres in Survey No.49/2 of Ekarajapura Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and that the land was permitted to be made use of for residential purpose as per an order bearing No.ALN (Ho.Su) Sr/15/2012-13 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Deputy Commissioner and that the property has been developed for the purpose of forming a residential layout. In response to a notice issued by the 2nd respondent on 29.08.2012, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, seeking removal of obstruction, the petitioner having not filed any objection, though entered appearance through a learned Advocate on 11.12.2012, the 2nd respondent passed an 3 order dated 19.4.2013, as at Annexure-A, permitting KPTCL to erect the tower at location No.8 in the land bearing Survey No.49/2 of Ekarajapura Village and to draw the line and to charge the line and the petitioner herein was directed not to obstruct the said project work. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.
2. Sri. K.M.Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing by the 2nd respondent in the matter of passing the impugned order. He submitted that though the case had been adjourned on 25.03.2013 to 14.05.2013, without any notice to the petitioner's Advocate, the 2nd respondent has preponed the case and has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is thus vitiated and hence, warrants interference.
3. Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri. T.K.Vedamurthy, learned 4 HCGP appearing for 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submitted that a notice dated 04.04.2013 was sent by post and was served on the petitioner on 06.04.2013, with regard to preponing of the case to 12.04.2013 at 3.00 p.m. and there being no appearance, the authority has proceeded further in the matter. Learned Advocates submitted that though sufficient opportunity was granted, statement of objections to the notice dated 29.08.2012, was not filed. Learned counsel submitted that, in the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that she had no reasonable opportunity of hearing before the 2nd respondent is untenable.
4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record, in my opinion, the 2nd respondent has not conducted the proceeding in accordance with law. Petitioner was notified on 29.08.2012, by the 2nd respondent, that there was no sitting of the 2nd respondent on 22.09.2012 and 29.09.2012. On 29.10.2012, petitioner entered 5 appearance through her Advocate and the matter was adjourned to 06.11.2012. There was no sitting either on 06.11.2012 or on 13.11.2012 and since the petitioner was absent on 20.11.2012, the case was adjourned to 11.12.2012, on which date, Vakalath on behalf of the petitioner was filed by an Advocate and the case was adjourned to 08.01.2013. There was no sitting of the 2nd respondent on 08.01.2013, 15.01.2013 and 25.03.2013. On 25.03.2013, the 2nd respondent adjourned the matter to 14.05.2013. No doubt, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.04.2013 by post and a copy was served on her on 06.04.2013. However, an Advocate having entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner by filing Vakalath on 11.12.2012, the 2nd respondent ought to have served the notice of preponement of the case on the learned Advocate, who had filed Vakalath on behalf of the petitioner. In view of shortage of time, the petitioner has not been able to get in touch with her Advocate and make arrangement for appearance on the preponed date i.e., 12.04.2013. 6 Reason for preponement of the case has not been made known in the notice served on the petitioner. The record of the case showing the reason for preponement of the case is also not produced. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order, without serving the notice of the preponement of the case on the learned Advocate for the petitioner. In my view, there is denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated and unsustainable.
In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent either in person or through her learned Advocate on 06.07.2013 and file objections, if any. The petitioner and the 1st respondent shall appear before the 2nd respondent on all the hearing dates of the case, commencing from 06.07.2013 and the 2nd respondent shall grant opportunity of 7 hearing to both the parties and decide the matter expeditiously and before 20.07.2013. No costs.
Sri. T.K.Vedamurthy, HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca