Karnataka High Court
Kesari W/O Chandrashekar Rabakavimath vs The Commissioner on 25 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8617
WP No. 107829 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 107829 OF 2017 (LB-UC)
BETWEEN:
KESARI W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR RABAKAVIMATH,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED H.D.M.C. EMPLOY,
R/O: M.I.G.120, 5TH CROSS, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SURESH S/O. NINGAPPA CHENNAPUR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN,
R/O: ANCHATAGERI ONI, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
3. PRAKASH S/O. NINGAPPA CHENNAPUR,
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
MALAGALADINNI
R/O: KADASHIDDHESWAR COLONY,
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2024.06.28 13:25:54
+0530
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
4. MANJUNATH S/O. NINGAPPA CHENNAPUR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
R/O: KADASHIDDHESWAR COLONY,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. PRAKASH K. JAWALKAR &
SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADV. FOR R2-R4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8617
WP No. 107829 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TAKE
SWIFT ACTION IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
321(3) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1976
PRODUCED ALONG WITH THIS WRIT PETITION AT ANNEXURE-J.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by petitioner seeking
direction against respondent No.1 to take further precipitative
action pursuant to notice issued under Section 321(3) of The
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act').
2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has
placed on record the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Appellate
Court in M.A.No.11/2017 wherein, the confirmation order
passed under Section 321(3) of the Act is set-aside by the
learned District Judge by allowing the appeal by an order dated
10.08.2017. If the demolition order under Section 321(3) of the
Act is set-aside by the Appellate Court, the right to seek
implementation of the confirmation order by seeking a
mandamus, does not survive for consideration. However,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8617
liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail the order passed
by learned District Judge in the manner known to law.
Writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the
petitioner to assail the order passed by learned District Judge in
the manner known to law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
