[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Abdul Ghani Nazeer Khan vs Municipal Commissioner on 6 April, 2026
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5066-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.100193 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
ABDUL GHANI NAZEER KHAN
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. #413/338, KASTURBA NAGAR,
SALAMAT GALLI, SIRSI,
UTTAR KANNADA-581401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF
VISHAL KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
NINGAPPA ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE
PATTIHAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
Digitally signed by THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.102782/2026 DATED
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 02.04.2026 (VIDE ANNEXURE-H) BY ALLOWING THE
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF
EVICTION DATED 24.02.2025 BEARING
NO./NASASHI/NAI.VI/ANTIM NOTICE/VIV/2024-2025
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A-1;
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5066-DB
WA No. 100193 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
The appellant has invoked the writ Court's
jurisdiction in WP No.102782 of 2026 calling in
question the Notice dated 24.02.2025 issued by the
respondent, and the respondent has issued this
notice informing the appellant, amongst others, that
he has not removed inflammable materials such as
rubber and plastic from his property despite earlier
notices and therefore, the respondent proposes action
for removal of these materials from the property apart
from invoking jurisdiction under the Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964, Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The writ Court, by the impugned order dated
02.04.2026, has directed notice calling upon the
learned counsel for the appellant to pay requisites for
issuance of such notice.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5066-DB
HC-KAR
2. Sri Sourabh Hegde, the learned counsel
for the appellant, supports that the appellant is
constrained to seek interim protection because the
respondent-officials have been repeatedly visiting the
appellant's property in the last three [3] days, with
the threat of removing materials stored in his
property notwithstanding the following
circumstances:
[a] The respondent proposes to take action
based on Notice dated 24.02.2025, but
the appellant has been served with this
Notice only on 28.03.2026.
[b] The appellant has been served with
notices as referred to in the impugned
Notice dated 24.02.2025, but the
appellant has the advantage of
subsequent No-Objection-Certificate
[for short, 'NOC'] dated 20.04.2025.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5066-DB
HC-KAR
[c] The proceedings are initiated at the
instance of a third party who has a
vested interest.
[d] The appellant has not encroached any
portion of any public utility and the
appellant has been in the business of
dealing with used plastic and rubber
for decades.
[e] The appellant's property is assessed for
commercial purposes and the appellant
has not encroached or even blocked
any public access.
3. Sri S. V. Yaji, the learned counsel for the
respondent, submits that he has secured instructions
from the Commissioner upon being informed about
the present proceedings, and the Commissioner is
able to verify that none from his Office have gone to
the appellant's property in the last three days. The
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5066-DB
HC-KAR
learned counsel submits that the appellant's
grievance is unfounded.
4. However, this Court must prima facie
observe that if the respondent could take action must
answer what is the outcome of the Notice dated
24.02.2025 especially when this Notice is followed by
NOC dated 20.04.2025. Any explanation that could
be offered by the respondent will have to be
considered by the writ Court to address, amongst
others, the appellant's grievance with the impugned
Notice dated 24.02.2025 and the possible action
pursuant thereto. This Court is of the categorical
view that unless all the circumstances are considered
and there is a specific direction, the respondent
cannot be precipitous so long as the appellant
complies with all the statutory requirements and
ensure that the public is not inconvenienced in any
manner. Hence:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5066-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
The writ appeal stands disposed of directing
the respondent/ its officials not to be precipitous
without the leave of the writ Court, but the appellant
shall ensure due statutory compliances and the
public is not inconvenienced in any manner. The
respondent is reserved with liberty to file application
with the writ Court in WP No.102782 of 2026 to pass
all just orders.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
PJ
CT:VH
List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1
