IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGEREJII I WRIT PETITION NO.328S4 OF 2010 »(»Li3>_-RES_I)m"" C/w WRIT PETITION Nos.e368--6369/2010;;I0863--..IO.sS-:7,'-EOIIO._"7' I 1086840869/2010, 10870-10874/2010 AND, 1O;37E4-108176/2010;-.,,.,, In WRIT PETITION N0..32854 OF BETWEEN: M/S VARUNI ICE PLANT AREGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM -. I UDDINAHITHLU . KODAVOOR POST , _. ~ : UDUPI 576 106 H _. _ _ " BY ITS MANAGING PETITIONER (BY SR1 PUTTIGEVII ' AND: I I UDUPICITY I«I§--INICIPALITY'«--w ..... BY ITS COM N--ISSI'ONER UDUPI__57€:}'Il.Q1 _ RESPONDENT :;.(_Bv SRIN.PRASSAD7Hv_IE_GD'E ADVOCATE) THIS I\A;'RI"i'V:I3ETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION" INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT AT AE\tNEX~iV| ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. ZN') In WRIT PETITION Nos.6368~--6369/2010: 1. ANIL v SALIYAN AGE 39 YEARS S/O VASU T BANGERA 'INCHARA' UDDINA HITHLU KOOAVOOR, UDUPI 2. HARISH 3 SUVARNA AGE 49 YEARS S/O}.S.MALPE . MALPE POST, UDUPI DISTRICT ' V ...,RET1T;_'ONER:S (BY SR1. MENAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT _ URBAN OEVELORMENT»..O'E.RAVRTM_ECNT.._ VIDHANA SOuOHA__ " » . BANGALORE 5STeEe_01~._ 2. THE COMM1S'S1O--NER.."' . ' - URBAN OEvELORM.ENT-- AUT§*!ORI'__FY'»..' UDUPI ~ .. 3. GOVIND/A4KU'I\3DAR " __ .....
AGE MA,JO’R j
BYLA;<ER'E.,.. T<QOAvOOR_
uOuRI.g ' * " *.»
v«:i;"~"'r»1,/S VARLJNI ICE REANT
UDDINAHITHLU POST
ȤRObAvOOR"_T
_ ._UDU.Pl*57_6 :06
v._'BYTTS,MA'NAGING PARTNER RESPONDENTS
« R;.DEvOAS, AGA FOR R1;
SR}-;v–K.P.PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SR1. PUTTIGE R RAMESH, ADVOCATE. FOR R3–R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOvERN_’M.EjA;T,~.._
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE DATED O6&,.Q_2″.2VO1.D’A. 2
AS PER ANNEX–F.
In WRIT PETITION Nos.1B863-67/2010, 1:33’6:sT–G69’/2oTj.jt5VI:
1. NAGAPPA GANIGAR
AGE 59 YEARS
S/O SHESHA GANIGA
‘SAIDHAM’, N0.14»31
UDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
UDUPI 576106
2. SMT.JALAJA GANIGAR «
AGE 72 YEARS _ ‘
W/OJANARDHANA GAN–IuGA_R ;_ V
No.14/53, ‘JANARDHANALNILAYA’ ‘
UDDINA HITLU, KQ’DA’J_OOv-PL~_ ‘
UDUPIS76106 ‘ ” V
3. SMT.SUSHEELA ‘
AGE 49 YEARS I E. =
W/O EAYARAMVPOOJARY *
No.14–3O (2) I I _
UDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR ‘
UDUP1576§106. ‘ ‘
4. LAKKARPA’SA’LIA’rA”N_
AGE 49.Y’E.ARS ‘T I .
S/O’S.1D.Du S1J:\f«.ARNA.v
DURGASHREE NIELAYA. ‘
“‘~w’No.14–4:L.gA-1 O’ ‘
UDDINA HSITLUA, KODAVOOR
-«..2’_:’:U«DUE?I 576 136:.
~ I _» S “S.MT§ ” S.HVA’R.A DA
AGE 35YEARS
2′ 1′.’j~-W”/O DIWAKARA KOTIYAN
I ROO.P.£\SHREE NIVAS, No.2.-149
I ‘ — A UDDENA HITLU, KODAVOOR
US-UPPI 575 105
6. KITTA POOJARY
AGE 45 YEARS
S/O CHEENKRA POOJARY
ABHIJIT NILAYA, !\EO.2-151
UDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
UDUPI 576 106
PRADEEP V SUVARNA
AGE 49 YEARS
S/O LATE VASU R SUVARNA –
SUGANDHA KASTURI I
No.14/41, UDDINAHITLU
KODAVOOR, UDUPI 576 1636
(BY SRI. M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
. GOVENDA K_UN1′)_AR ‘V
}–~E}DAY KUMAR . .
AGE 42 YEARS»;
_ _j~S/Q GOVINDA KEJNDAR
‘BAILKERE, KOGAVOOR POST
‘:”’VU’D’U.I’D:E ‘ A
V ‘\/I’3AY…_PRAKASH
1;-._AG«E 37 YEARS
S»/0. NAGAPRA M KOTIYAN
“RjAT VIJAYASHANKAR
UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GovER;_N’ME-N.1”;’
URBAN DEVELOPMENT D.EPARTM.ENT=, ‘
VIDHANA SOUDHA 3’ .4 –
BANGALORE 01 = . THE CoMMISS1o:\;ER.V"'T~" URBAN DEVEE_C)PMENT UDUPI .L . 'a *' _*u' S/.€,'.SUVARE'J.AV ' AGE MAJOR , BYLAK ERE, _ KO D'AvO_O~-R. _ uDu#1"_.'1;%_~'a ; 1;'.--.PET1TI:Q_N'E'RS V KODAVOOR UDUPI DISTRICT 6. HARISH KANCHAN AGE 34 YEARS S/O SANJEEVA KODIYAN R/A ADILAKSHMI UDDENAHITLU KODAVOOR UDUPI DISTRICT _ 7. RAMACHANDRA KARKERA AGE 39 YEARS S/O GIRIYA AMEEN .»
MALPE, UDUPI DISTRICT …RESI?OvND~–ENTS
(BY SRI. RDEVDAS, AGA FOR R1; —- _
SRI. I<.RRASAD HEGDE, ADvOCA'T.E FOR R2'; ' .
SRI. PUTTIGE R RAMESH, ADVOCATE 'F_OVRéR34R.f/T'
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED"U!\¥DER..A,R'l'ICLES'=226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OE.v'INO_'IA R_RAxI..NG-.TO.ij~QuASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE uNDE.R~._SEI:'RE'I',ARv "TO THEI,GOv'E'RNMENT, URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,'"'BA_NGA.LOR«E__"DATED 6.2.2010 AS PER
ANNEX–F AND ETC. :.
In wan PETI’rION._:§Ios.’1o8′:%o-,.i4._[261o AND 10875-76/2010:
1. SHEKAR I<A_RI<ERA
AOEA6 YEARSV '
S','.O NARAYAN *
'NIRQN', 'No.14-29+.A _
U DDINA' HIT i.;',J_," ~.*I<_CJ['JA.\/('__f,.OR
. . UDUPI S.76–._I~o5' I
2., ‘vA.MAN P SOVARNA’ ‘
AGE 52 YEARS
«I..SS/O RAPPA KUNOAR
I _N’OI.1’4,/3AO:A–2, ‘RANJITHA NILAYA’
, *._DD_DI~NA._zrm*Ǥ..u, KODAVOOR
” UDUPI 576 -106
‘SI%%;’TII\I.INTODHA P SUVARNA
£3.
AGE 35 YEARS
W/O PRAKASH SUVARNA
“PRAKRUTHI”
UDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
UDUPI S376 106
PRAKASH
AGE 46 YEARS
S/O KESHAV GANIGAR
SRI DEVI KRIPA NILAYA
UDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
UDUPI 576 106
HARISH
AGE 28 YEARS
S/O MADHAVA GANIGAR
KRISHNA NILAYA No.14-35
UDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
UDUPI 576 106
SUNDAR PALAN
AGE 53 YEARS _
S/O BABU 3Ars:G.E,RA’..G_ ‘ ”
BHAGAvATH1[a\:ILAYEA.;E» _
6
UDDINA HITLVU, KODAVC}{)R:”A
UDUPI 576 106-. .
PRAVEEN
AGE 42 YEARS _
s,tO. CHAMJRA _AM1_N ” ….. 14 »
SHIVA NILAYA’*
No’.:4/2V3;’ UDD_INGAvHITL_U, KODAVOOR
UDUPE. 5’26 1*o..Ej*–._ ”
A
.”frHE COMMISSIONER
…PETITIONERS
sRI.’M_.’E.NA.GE$.HE; ADVOCATE)
, UNDERSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
.’j-URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
V VI_’DH.ANGA SOUOHA
BANGALORE 01
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
UDUPI
3′ GOVINDA KUNDAR
SIC) SUVARNA
AGE MAEOR
BYLAKERE, KODAVOOR
UDUPI
4. UDAY KUMAR
AGE 42 YEARS
SKO GOVINDA KUN DAR
BAILKERE, KODAVOOR POST
UDUPI
5. VIJAY PRAKASH
AGE 37 YEARS «
S,fO NAGAPPA M KOTIYAN _ ‘
RIAT \!I3AYASHANKAR.–. V
KODAVOOR, UDUPI
6. HARISH KANCHANE .3 ”
AGE 34 YEARS …. =:;,__,
S/O SANJEEVA KOOnjA_N 7′; ‘
R/AAOILARs’::;:M1._ – V
UDDINAE-iITLU,l¢KO.DA\/COR”.V ” R.
UDUPI DISTRICT», .
7. RAMACHANORA KARI<:&=RA"
A6539 YEARS. ‘ . …..
SfO GIRIYA AMEEN
MA’:..,RE,_U–OuUE.Iv OISTVRTQT RESPONDENTS
(Ev SR1. ‘R,O’E.vO;A’s;?A–GA;;’FOR R1;
‘—=SRI. K.FRASAD .HE£§DE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SR1. PUTT’IGE=fR RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R7)
«WRIT ‘PETITIONS.’ FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 & 227 OF
:*.’T;’~1_’E_cOf§%:sTI’:*UT:Ow OF INDEA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
A. “..”-RASSEO Esf~/’Er’:-.-«e’E UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, URBAN
DE’-JELGPMEENT AUTHORETY, BANGALORE DTD 06.02.2910 As PER
V AN?~.’E}€:E,_
ALL THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
‘-HEARING ma B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT’ MAOE THE FOLLOWING:
QRDER
W.P.No.3285«<i/V2010 is filed by M/s.Varuni
challenging the endorsement, dated 29.07.2010 0'
issued by the Udupi City Municipality. Fu"rthe'r«it'l–.has
mandamus to the said Municipality' to is.su'e_l.the.'s_aAncti'one.d-~00'
building plan to the petitioner.
2. W.P.Nos.6368–369, 10’a–é.3+.8’a%7;.;.y’10’a5.a§’8a9, 10870-874
and 10875-876 of 2010’are fiied”‘i5y:’l:hle..re_sid.en.t.s:’.v0l the locality
challenging the okayeiéflrglelhll; oatéd 06.02.2010
(Annexure–F) the ‘Udupi Urban
Development of land use from the
master plan — from:_resiVde*n:tial Ltis’e..:..tol.l.industriai use for setting up
the ice plantgnlith. certa’in._l_c:olndirtions.
Iipwopuldfl up the petitions filed by the residents
thellllloca-I.ityV.” confusion regarding their ranks in
different pet’l”tions., the Varuni Ice Plant, petitioner in Writ Petition
hereinafter referred to as the petitioner
0’ proponent and the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.6368-
other connected petitions are referred to as the
“”,p}:–titioner residents.
F233.
9
4. Sri M.E.l\lagesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner
residents brings to my notice the earlier view of the
Development Authority contained in its letter, dated .
addressed to the petitioner project propo.ne_nt. _–“‘Th’a:t_’;v.fo’rT3′
reasons, his request for the change of lancllyuséiftom.residentialyxi’
to industrial purpose was turned dowii._’»:«.l,.,..
a) The road width is only 4_ péir the
guidelines the road width of 12
meters in industrial a~reas.:fl: A it it A.
b) Public 1-the._.es”ta’biV:§h’hwent of the ice
plant. “”” .. , , . . .
c) The :’l.ocali*tyVlai.ls-_:vvith’i’vné:’:th.e*residential zone as per the
revised l it
Srivfiiagyesh without there being any change
in the AcVi’rcuVm_st’an-eves,__ the respondent Urban Development
IjA_utvhorit’y~.reverwseljg:_itS.:;.”e.arlier view and passed the resolution
recjommendliéngy Government for giving the clearance under
ittea.’c5’jfs.:tr;esAfcarhataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961
s, called the ‘KTCP Act’ for short). The learned counsel
the respondent Urban Development Authority has
@534.
“13. uses that are permitted under special
circumstances by the Authority:
Municipal, State and Central Government offices, puljlic
utility buildings, cemeteries, golf clubs, banks, in
homes, hospitals for human care, (with: a” minirrium,sita’l
area of 750 sq. mtrs and the site is abutting–r’a«roa’dV’of
minimum 12 mtr width), philanthropic usesffuel storage A’
depots, filling stations (excludin’g_:”i?etrolit ttunlrs,
filling), service industries with poweriiiup to_,_v10 HP {for all
the above industries and ‘those as –«thei’lisMt given
Schedule–I, power required forlair’~con’ditiohing,” lifts and
computers are excluded frorn’Hl9::”s_oecii”ied taco}/9), power
loom for silk twistin;:’~'(l~’D, to “Hi5; .pio’vide§:l the noise
generated shall v”pre.scribed by the
Ministry of,._.EnVviron;n:=,en_t For.est,~§’ Government of
India, gas _cvlirid–er,__Vs.toragé?-.._PFovided it satisfies all
required norms of. and software computer
offices and :’nformation._ ‘technology related activities
provided “the site’-»isV’abutting a road of minimum 12 in
iV’width,.t._chatlcafe centres,” ‘doctors consulting room, office
ltof Vad’.(oca,te€,’«..other profession in public interest nor
e.$&ceeo’ing”v.?U.,,gsqVlV.l:in’;’ provided the applicant himself is a
professional,. & use toilets and Service apartments,
‘vehicle parking including multilevel car parking. In
.44″*i${iu=!t5–jstoreyed Residential Apartments, shops &
if i6To::e_ra.i stores of 10% the Total carpet area of the
hi” ___ ” ‘ ‘lbuilding. “‘
HBH
n
:3
8. The learned counsel has also relied on the Division
Bench decision of this Court in the case of of
H..V.VIJAYARAGHAVAN 81 OTHERS V. MALATHI DAS 8:
0THERS., reported in 2009 (4) xcca 2313 (as) to buttress
his submission that the change proposed should
contravention of any provisions of the Act.
9. Sri Puttige R.Ramesh, the |ea=,rned..,«ciounsé.l’
petitioner project proponent submitsr’t.h”at
Development Authority vide its Notifica’tixon,tdated.,VV:20:5.(l9.2009
called for the objections from,_”t–he–‘_:pu§b|i”c*«..,to.,i”‘the proposal for
setting up theticlel thewpevtitioner residents filed
the objections aftter time and some of the
petitioners, who filed the.,o’–bjectVi’o’ns within the prescribed period
of i’ime..stulo,sequ-ently withd”revv them and some of the petitioner
residents” the objections at all. Thus in effect,
‘j.ta=ccording’to’ Sri..R’a’n1esh, no valid or surviving objections were
– –fil.!’etd.,_by..,any of the petitioner residents. He also submits that the
p~etition”er, project proponent through Sri Govihda Kundar has
executed the gift deed, dated 26.02.2010 in favour of
htidupi Municipality for widening of the road by 6 meters. He
FISH.
also brings to my notice, the existence of as many as 26 ice
plants in the vicinity of the site where the petitioner project
proponent proposes to set up its ice plant. He takes exceptit-in
to the selective objection being raised by the be
residents.
10. Sri Ramesh further submits thatflthel«Ka’–rnataAl§a«__State
Pollution Control Board has already’given:__its_consent”for
establishment of the ice plant. He alsv-oibrings to my_”‘:1o’t–lce”this
Court’s decision in the case of”._B.R,«3I\L’I’GA”eAND”OTHERS V.
% TOWN MUNICIPAL couNcIL,’plbi3s?I,l |:_)Q.ii§t;’t::’isfrRIcT AND
ANOTHR, repovl’ted..inyeisisgasl.(4jjee’i§ai¥.’L-;aV–si:o8, wherein it is held
that if the of land use is to be made
Contrary to the (ill)-P_no.rpiannlng authority, may with
the_.«~”:”«’lfy€§vio,!J:”s«:. ‘Va3{,3V’l3rovaV.l”‘of…._t_he State Government, allow such
changes .,the_y4″la’_r;d”use or development as provided under
‘ Secti on i”-‘l~;i’».= Qofitihiepj Act.
‘:3 ‘Sr.,i Eibevdas, the learned Additional Government
appearing for the Government submits that if the
‘VV.,fe’p..etit’ione’r residents’ argument that no change of land use is
flfill
J5
permissible under Section 14–A of the KTCP Act, then the
provisions would be rendered otiose or nugatory. He also
submits that the Government has followed the procedure
prescribed while giving its approval to the Urban Development
Authority’s resolution/proposal for the change of land by
the residential purpose to industrial purpose. Granting: such”
relaxation in the changed circumstances is”vve’|’I”w_it’hin.;the’porwer
of the Government, so submits Sri Devdasf
12. He further submits that the f’acTts.of Gri ragihlavan
(supra) and the facts of the pres_ent.<ia'se{are"o-entirely"'di'fferent.
In Vijayaraghgu/a'n~.«it 'he_l"d"" that the Government
cannot interferewlitlh upon a Development
Authority. In there is no interference or
intF_Rlsi47.r.7 i3.'0weAr"s~o.f…t«he Urban Development Authority.
On the 'other. proposal/resolution passed by the said
:i:':'aso__t.hority"i.s"'appVroved.'s:'by the State Government in accordance
A _ igh-thy law.
S’ri_ K”‘.Prasad Hegde, the learned counsel for the
Udupi Urban Development Authority and Udupi City
hat[fl’-4l.uAni'<:i.p.a'|'ity submits that a number of industries have already
HBH.
[6
come up in the locality in question. He also confirms the giving
of the land by the petitioner project proponent for the forrnatioi<i_
of 12 meter wide road.
14. Sri Nagesh, in the course of hisr’ejo’indeif., sip-bbrtii.tsV:thfe’i~t
when the objections are not filed or withdr’ayvlnj_A’there
impediment for the petitioner residen’~t:s””to rile the..vvritVV”pVeti’tion.
In this regard, he relied on the Apex,-Cotirtfsudeecisionin the case
of S.N.CHANDRASHEKAR AND’ sum: or
KARNATAKA AND 3 scc 203.
He relied on the canvassing another
proposition too} landieusye must conform to the
revised masteriplan.’ in
15. T4lje”si.ibmis’si._ons’ ofthe learned counsel have received
corisiVVde.ration’i””é I do not propose to reject the
petitions ‘«fi.leld~v-ivéijyxi t!?i’e.~:”petitioner residents on the preliminary
V’gobjvections'”~raised -biysri P.R.Ramesh, just because some of the
‘ Vshavewtiled objections after the expiry of the prescribed
‘o_r’»ha:ve not filed the objections or filed the objections but
the objections, subsequently. If the coming of an
is going to affect the quality of life, Article 21 of the
FISH
17
0
Constitution of India can always be pressed into service. The
right to life granted under the said Article cannot be dilut.eV_cl..,’_:o.’:_
affected adversely merely because some parties have$’_:’not~5,fi!.edr.-V___”*_
the objections.
16. Section 14-A of the KTCP Act einpc.iy¢rs ‘Plarnr§l.:ng,»:Vl”
Authority to allow such changes the ‘prio.rVapwp.rov’al’V:of
the State Government. In thi’s.__regE1r’d’; be ‘b’ene-ficial to
refer to the statement of objelctsland No.17 of
1991 by virtue of the statute,
which states, initera_I”i-ai,”””that:..fS’ectiv’t§_n.j”{A144A prescribes the
modaltties of th’e*la’nd use. Thus, the very
rationale or insertion of Section 14~A of
the Act is that under’certainucipelumstances, the change of land
us_e’r~has to’i~be,___,per_mitlted«b.y..the local development authority but
with”the.-priroyr of the State Government.
_ 17.”‘««..Cla_’use,u5’lib to Annexure-I to Urban Zonning
A ‘4’R.e@;iulVatioVns, the” provisions of which are extracted hereinabove is
It cannot be said that the purposes or activities
‘notmentioned in clause lb cannot be permitted at all. The
.,..,,.._ll”-«regulation makers’ intentment becomes clear from the last
fifilf.
sentence of clause 1b. It provides for shops and general stores
but only to the extent of 10% of the total carpet area _.of_,:’the._
building in multi–storeyed residential apartments. Inthe
portions of the said clause, there is no r_eference”to”‘shops
and general stores. This only shows that the o’rV:”t–heri1.r_’
purpose are only inclusive; there is niopijohibitioit ,or*em§ba.rg,o.3as
such for other business activities.
18. The reliance on the =:\/i_ia_yaAra,t;;ei_1avan (supra)
by the petitioner residehts’ side their rescue in
any way. That” Government’s
interference with i the powers of the
Development A’uthoriVty.: V
19. ‘an.other”‘as,pect of the matter, which cannot be lost
sight_ of thejeie-xistence of as many as 26 ice plants in the
ipevicinity.o’f’.__the” site of ice plant. While putting the
V’.:*interpretati’on Section 14~A of the KTCP Act, this Court in the
o}t=i..3.se’iit§a (supra) has held that if the development or
use is to be made contrary to the ODP or CDP,
KR”i.,_the’.,:Pi’anining Authority may, with the previous approval of the
BR
industry and in the course of the industrial operations, the
interference of the Pollution Control Board can always be
if the petitioner project proponent industry is found .
pollution. It shall also be open to the petjtione-r.”r’es~i(jen”tsv”to
make a demand on the Pollution Control Board or loVt’i:er'<1:_'
competent authority to a) demand th_a_t~..tall chirnney"bel={i_ns.tal!»ed %
by the petitioner project proponentu:a.ndi~_c_gb)"§t,§_houfid not
discharge the untreated air at the gg.roun{d ;.o'r"'rfoof'iievel, etc.
22. If the pet_i’tioner re_sid_en~f:s the pollution.
control measuresfit ‘ti~1e:’F?é’lVlu’ti:i.ri C;m=trol Board and other
competent bodies ‘toii»rnpo:’sVe a’m_[‘mea_su’r’e that is permissible in
law to prevent’the– pollut%.ojn_:o’€_:a’i.r:’and/or to keep the pollution
levels under .c.heck””anV_d wii;~hinv_the’wpermissible limits.
the observations and the directions
7′.gg_containeci’.—-_VAhVereiv»n_a’b;.oye in the preceding paragraphs,
‘vy.p4Noseéssiieseé/2010, 1086340867/2010, 10868–
;1u.O’8:6_9;/2O1(u),VViO870–1O874/2010 AND 10875-10876/2010 are
.”~”‘d%i$m’issedi.
93%
24. Now I am left with W.P.§\lo.32854/2010 filed by the
petitioner project proponent against the Udupi City Municipagl’i~ty’.~..v
Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioncaiil’proj’ectI.v…._”.
proponent submits that the permission to_constru_r:tthe’jbu’i’l~dVi*ng
is kept in abeyance only because the ti:a’tVf’t–he*::yi_’«
permission should not be given”l_to’~._the”~petit_ion’er{._’vprojecti
proponent to construct the building. VAyI..,lairnl._afraidtheiiikiiaritior any
other functionary cannot fttpteu”‘conbst–ruction of the
building with any ratve_§5f.__Succéss-i;i:nles§..f’.i..i’}Vt.fl:é”.P’%rmission is
sought on a land’ to ithlelwilparty and ii) the
permission so_u.ght_isf”iiot;::’_iVn Vliiivilth the building bye-
laws. Otherwise, it ,t’ovl.’:preventing a party from making
the beneficial use,_of the to him. The public,
invcluding if/lii~_,0., ha’v’e_.wceHrta:inly the right to object to the use of
f_or«.a~:particular purpose and not to its construction
impugned endorsement issued by the
City””Nlu”nicip”ality on 29.07.2010 (Annexure~M) is liable to
accordingly it is quashed. The said Municipality
h.erepydirected to consider the petitioner project proponent’s
plan in accordance with law and issue the same if the
‘petitioner project proponent meets all the legal requirements.
fifiri
[N2
[NJ
25. In the resuit, W.P.No.328S4/2010 is accordingly
allowed. No order as to costs.
26. Sri K.Prasad Hegde, the learned Standing
respondent is permitted to file the vaka¥:é1tAn’_fo*rs_vt*he
udupi Cit)! Municipaiity in w.P.32854/201031 the weé_’r:7S
% %
bvr Iv “” ‘ 1’.