AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.—The grievance of the Petitioner is that her representations vide Annexures-K, K3, M and P, dated 3.12.2010, Nil, 14.1.2011 and 31.1.2011 respectively, are not being considered by Respondent No. 1 and that Respondent No. 1 is not completing the enquiry proceedings initiated in No. E2/BA/89/2009-10 in respect of the alleged violation of building bye-laws by Respondent No. 3.
According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 has constructed an apartment building violating the building bye-laws and other statutory norms. In that context, the Petitioner has made representations as per Annexures-K, K3, M and P, dated 3.12.2010, Nil, 14.1.2011 and 31.1.2011 respectively, before Respondents 1 and 2, According to the Petitioner, those representations are not considered in proper manner. Her further grievance is that the enquiry initiated in No. E2/BA/89/2009-10 is not being conducted properly and that the Petitioner is not heard in the matter.
The writ petition is opposed by Sri Viswajith Shetty and Sri B.L. Acharya, learned advocates appearing for Respondents 1 and 3 respectively.
It is not in dispute that the enquiry proceedings are initiated based on the representations made by the Petitioner before the first Respondent. Copy of the order sheet maintained by the enquirying officer is produced at Annexure-N to the writ petition. According to the Petitioner, she was not heard in the matter, whereas the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 submits that an ample opportunity is given to the Petitioner and she is not co-operating during the enquiry. Sri Viswajith Shetty, brings to the notice of the Court that the matter is already heard and reserved for orders.
The aforementioned submissions of Mr. Vishwajith Shetty are supported by, Sri B.L. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 3 by contending that the matter is reserved for orders after hearing the Petitioner.
Since the Petitioner alleged that she is not heard in the matter, interest of justice will be met if one more opportunity of being heard is given to the Petitioner. By the said process, no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties.
Sri Chandru, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will be present before the first Respondent on 30th of September 2011 at 3.00 p.m. and on that day, she will submit the records if any, in support of her case.
The said submission is recorded. The third Respondent is also directed to appear on that day and to make submissions, apart from submitting additional documents if any. After hearing the Petitioner and the third Respondent, the orders shall be passed by the first Respondent on merits and in accordance with law within twenty days thereafter.
It is made clear that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 shall be present on 30th of September 2011 before the first Respondent at 3.00 p.m., without further notice from the first Respondent. It is also made clear that if the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 do not appear before the first Respondent, then, the first Respondent shall proceed to pass orders based on the available material on record.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.