Karnataka High Court
Smt Indumathi vs Mangalore City Corporation on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.346 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. INDUMATHI
W/O DR. SURESH M MANKAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O SHIVANI, GEORGE MARTIS ROAD
KADRI MALIKATTA
MANGALORE - 575 002.
...APPELLANT
[(BY SRI. RAJKUMAR R, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]
AND:
1 . MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
M G ROAD,MANGALORE 575003.
2 . M/S MANGALA BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD.
A REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI CHANDRAKANTH SANU
S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM SANU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
O/AT DOOR NO 4-9-776,
'SANU PALACE' MANGALORE 575003
....RESPONDENTS
-2-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2022 PASSED IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 667/2022 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE,, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed challenging the
order dated 9.2.2022 passed by the learned single
Judge whereby while disposing of the writ petition, a
direction has been issued to respondent No.1 to
consider the representation dated 1.12.2021
submitted by the respondent No.2-petitioner and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with Section 322 (2)
of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976 within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order.
2. The case has been taken on revised list.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant was neither
present in the first round nor in the second round to
press this writ appeal. From the order sheet, it
appears that he was also absent on the last date. It
appears that the appellant's counsel is deliberately
avoiding the court.
5. We have gone through the impugned order
dated 9.2.2022 passed in writ petition No.667/2022
(LB-RES). The court has not decided the writ petition
on the rights of the petitioner to claim for demolition
of the building in question and has merely provided
that the representation of respondent No.2-petitioner
may be considered and decided by respondent No.1,
who is said to be the competent authority in this
regard, in accordance with Section 322(2) of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the order.
6. We, therefore, do not find any reason to
keep this writ appeal pending unnecessarily. We are
of the considered view that it is for the competent
authority to consider the question of demolition of the
building in question in accordance with law as per his
discretion and by giving opportunity to the concerning
parties and no direction has been issued by the writ
court to pass any such order for demolition. As such,
no prejudice is said to have been caused to the
appellant. In this view of the matter, we do not find
any reason to grant indulgence.
Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of
merits, is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
rs
