AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—KIADB allotted the plot No. 46B, Industrial Area, Dabaspet, in favour of the 2nd petitioner. It has constructed the building by obtaining plan and licence, as required in the allotment conditions. It has leased the building constructed in favour of the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent having issued an intimation dated 03.06.2013, vide Annexure-E and a reply having been submitted on 14.06.2013, vide Annexure-F, these writ petitions were filed on 16.11.2013, to quash the said intimation of the 1st respondent and for grant of consequential reliefs.
Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned advocate contended that to the impugned intimation, a reply having been submitted, there is threat of forcible action by the respondents by taking law into their own hands and the industrial area having not been handed over to the 1st respondent, which is not providing any services, the impugned communication being only arm twisting tactics, interference is warranted.
To the notice, as at Annexure-E, reply was sent by registered post on 14.06.2013, vide Annexure-F. Till date, the 1st respondent has not taken any action against the petitioner, as stated in Annexure-E. A reply, as above, having been sent, it is expected that the 1st respondent would consider the same and being a statutory authority, would act in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the alleged threat of forcible action by taking law into their own hands by the respondents, who according to the petitioners are adopting arm twisting tactics, seems to me to be unjustified.
I am concerned in this case with the entertainment of the writ petitions against the notice/intimation issued by the 1st respondent. Annexure- E, ex-facie, cannot be said to be a ''nullity'' or totally ''without jurisdiction'' in the traditional sense. Petitioners have sent the reply, vide Annexure-F to Annexure-E. For entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, against an intimation like Annexure-E, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question. Such a situation is not shown to exist.
In these circumstances, it is appropriate that the petitioners should avail of the alternate remedy before the authority concerned, take objections regarding jurisdiction etc., in as much as, the respondents are amenable to the jurisdiction of their higher authorities. If the respondents were to take any adverse decision or act adverse to the interest to the petitioners, it will certainly open to the petitioners to assail such action/order in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or if the situation so demands, to approach this Court for relief. On the facts of this case, in view of the reply sent by the petitioners, vide Annexure-F, long ago, there being no action contrary to law, by the respondents, thereafter, I do not find justification to entertain, these writ petitions, as against the intimation/notice, as at Annexure-E.
In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of. If the respondents were to proceed against the petitioners, despite the submission of the reply, as at Annexure-F, their action can be the subject matter of challenge before the statutory Authority. The petitioners are at liberty to submit additional reply/objections, to Annexure-E. Despite such course of action, if any adverse order is passed, liberty is reserved to the petitioners, to question the same before the appropriate forum or even institute suit and seek relief.
Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
No costs.