High Court Karnataka High Court

Anilkumar S/O B Patil vs The Managing Director Nwkrtc on 3 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Anilkumar S/O B Patil vs The Managing Director Nwkrtc on 3 September, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
WP NO. 16683/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SERTEMBER,._":io09VV,   
BEFORE   V
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUST*1CE=..AJIT-J,?:}U'NJA.I)'- V
WRIT PETITION NO;V 1-6.683/V2Q«Q§Z,_{SwK}VVVVV'   

BETWEEN: VV V V V V V
ANILKUMAR

S /O B.PATiL,

AGE:43 YEARS,      

OCC:DRi\/ER IN KSRTC RLI.R.AL'«DEROT-I,*.  

NWKRTC I~IOSUR,._   '    ' 

HUBL1. i §;;.-= , ,    .V   V".--.----.~PETIT1ONER

(BY SRI.GuRUDEV_,.IV.VOACEIII§iAA}£ATH FOR

SR3LIV,Of<}ACfIICII§'}NI»IATEI; A13'./V_V.VV)VVVVV

AND: V V V V V V

1. THE VVMAN;IGIN.O DIRECTOR,

, N.WKRTC,..CEN'I'RAVi. OFFICE,

.. C}O1~(UL ROAD, _
 'HUEILIVISSO 032"; "" "

  V 'I I V}3VIVVi,VSI'ONAL CONTROLLER,

. _ ,N'WK*RTC.,VVDIVISIONAL OFFICE,
.'~COKUpROAD,
 H§_j.B~LIV~,i58O 032. ...RESPONDENTS

V’~.(BY M /S,_RAO ASSTS, ADVS FOR RI,
” ~ .-SMT.”I~I.R.RENUKA, ADV FOR R2}

_ -‘THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OR THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
‘ .. RESIDONDENT NO} TO CONSIDER THE

wp No.16683/200’?

REPRESENTATION /EXPLANATION SUBMITTED I5I~.i_if>’ER

ANNEXUREC AND E AND THEN PASS APPROPRIATE ORD’i2RfTO,4
APPROPRIATE THE PENAL RENT RECOVERED F’R’O1\it.._TH1j3
SALARY OF RETITIONER, FROM 23.eI.20eT”—- ASgI.I>IT.R-~-.I I-

Ai\§NEXURES~D, F TO K AND ETC,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FG’E§m}i5REL[Ni«INARY:”}I.};”3ARI’iiIG
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT i’«i1AD_EITE-iE’II~?’OLLOWEiSIf3:’*xi;_’

O_R..D_E,___13

1. The petitioner is WOI’ici{iiii1″1.é’ with ii-respondent-
Corporation si.nce last fiietitioner
had applied for allotment iof’~resideintia.}.:_iioigiseifconstructed by
the 15%” respondents _._aijEotted a residential
house official quarters. The
aiiotmeziiiiis Ciaim of the petitioner
is that has A copy of the aiiotment of

quarters isA”{}1″O(iL1C€dATai’t”.Pii1I}€Xu1″e-A. A notice has been

p_ isstpieici the respondeiits to the petitioner a Copy of which

‘is.ViprodLi_cied”at”A_nnexure~B indicating that the petitioner is

iri.;iiii.gi_ng’ ipiiéigai activities which is detrimentai to the

‘V Society aridivthe resi.dents in and around the Compiex. This

iiixgnotigce fiirf:iier directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters

. ititihiiri Seven days. A reply is given by the petitioner to the

i “said notice. It is noticed thereafter the petitioner has issued

WP No.16683/2007’

is to be evicted, the respondents are required
proceedings under the Karnataka Public _
of Unauthorised Occupants} Act, 19’7V’j§tV(bfor
appears such proceedings are not
point of time, directing respon’dentg.»..”‘.,
proceedings under the Public taige much
more time for the Hence, the
petitioner shall treat Ar1ne;;i’ir,e–i’.=L9’$__ias him u/s 4 of

the Act and the and legai iss.u.;=.d by him shall be

treated as ‘.Fheiii.’jpeti-tiiraner can also file additional
objectioinisiiiiwitliin of appearance before the
Estate (i§’ffice_r.i It ta’l.so’opieni for the respondents to place all

such _materials .which iwould warrant eviction of the

” ‘~ _petit:ii:~n(;-;’rV. itlencei,” thefollowing order is passed.

V =.Ti’:.¢”ip’etti.tioner shall treat Annexure–B as a notice

issued to s 4 of the Act. His reply and the Iegal notice

shallil:-.6 treated as objections. He is also given a week’s time

appearance before the Estate Officer to file

additional objections. It is open for the respondents to

produce all other such material before the Estate Officer.

,2

/,/T’

WP No.I6683/2007

Both peaitioner as well as respondents shafi appez;).1:VV_b.efe.re

the Diviséonai ControIEer/ Enquiry Officer on _

is made clear that no fresh notice shall

petitioner and he shall not have grieyaniceovf A’

The deductions in salary sham’;:§’subje:iV’%Atp,’:;he ‘fiinuai

outcome of the proceedings.

5. Wiih the above o’r3.s.Er\_r21’«:_io1€;_s,’. thev.ox2§rif£ petition stands

disposed of.

Jm/–