AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the schedule commercial property. The respondent issued a notice dated 11-2-2010 intimating that there is an extent of 1.5. meters of violation in terms of the details vide Annexure-D. Questioning the same he preferred an appeal u/s 443A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. The case of the petitioner is that the endorsement issued is bereft of authority of law. That no provision of law has been shown in order to justify the said endorsement. That without a source of power such endorsement is issued. The same is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the respondent contends that the even though it is an endorsement bringing out the violation, the same has to be considered as a notice u/s 321(1) of the Act. On so reading the endorsement he should have approached the respondent to plead his case, On the contrary, he has filed an appeal. Hence, the appeal has been rightly rejected. Hence, there is no ground to interfere. On hearing the respondents counsel, I''m of the considered view that the appropriate relief requires to be granted. Whenever an authority exercises its right under an Act and issues a communication in any manner, the same has to be proceeded by an authority in law. It is to be done in a procedure known to law The impugned endorsement is bereft of either one of the requirements. Merely writing a letter to the petitioner pointing out the errors therein would not render any right to the respondent. They would have to state the provision of law as invoked by them in order to issue the concerned communication. Failure to do so necessarily results in filing of appeals, writ petitions etc. It is this action of the respondent, that has led to miscarriage of justice. Under these circumstances, I''m of the considered view that such an endorsement cannot stand in the eye of law. It requires to be quashed. However, if any power is vested with the Corporation they are at liberty to so exercise it in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 11-2-2010 vide Annexure-D bearing No. L6/NRL/72/09-10 and consequently, the order in appeal dated 23-5-2011 vide Annexure-E in Misc. appeal No. 6/2010 are quashed.
Rule made absolute.