IN THE HIGH come': 01? KARNATAKA, T J
DATED THIS THE 9% my % '
BEFORE ..
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ;éEm:>Y
Emmy
1 MISS HUBLI
AGED 06¢: 'SERVICE'
R/O. NO...V.18.5;i3,JED.GALL:1", S
BELGAUMF; 59¢
2 SHRI
3/ 0. V{.S}IWANATH..H"UBLI
AGE 35 YEAR,Sj,' . O{_3C:="SERVICE
Rm. No.1s5o,;JEI3 GALLI
Bamum -- 590 006.
*VSMT"?J§r?V'.§'I'I.
% _ W/o.'v;sHwANATH HUBLI
AGE 62 YEARS, occ: HOUSEHOLD womc,
Rifl. 1sz<:};135o, JED GALLI
S
= BELGAUM ~ 590 006. PETITIONERS.
s KAMATE, ADV.)
' 1 THE COMMISSIONER BELGAUM CITY
CORPORATION
BELGAUM -- 590 001.
2 THE ADMINISTRATOR
CITY CORPORATION V
BELGAUM, AND DEPUTY C03MIIIISSfIONERV:..: I . '
BELGAUM - 590 001. _
3 SHRIASHOK I I
S/QNARAYAN KHA'I'AVKAR_" I
AGE MAJOR *
occ: SERVICE 5
R/0. I-I NO. 1351/ SJ-IAHAPUR
BELGAUM-590 V
4 sum VIVEK s;,'o NARA_YAN_
AGE Magma, am: s;smacE'I I
R/O. H }~'{Q.*ii_.1351/1,.VJED SHAHAPUR
BELGP.UM"j;~
5 SW-_M!)I{LTN1")."i'3] KHATAVKAR
AGE QR, 'OCC: ,M'§}DICAL PRACTITIONER
R/O. H NO."185._1/~1,JED GALLI SHAHAPUR
BEBLGAUM =- 005. RESPONDENTS.
OOII(Ey 31921. M B. ANNAPPANAVER, AGA FOR R2.
Lam G-OKAKAR, ADV. FOR R3-5)
THIS PE’I’I’I’ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
ANDVVQIZ7 OF THE’ CON’S’I’ITUTION OF mam
I VPRAYING T0 QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.
21;2.2o03 PASSED BY R2, VIDE ANX-C AND THE
BUIL-.DING PREMISSION mt 3.5.07 GRANTED BY
-RESPONDENT VIDE ANX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY THE coum MADE THE FOLLOWING: “K
9.3.2.343
Ptitioncrs, complaining’ -I — iv
questioned the licence by m§’—-1_§t« V.
favour of Respondents 3 to 5 §._Q§;1 éufi§:flon
over a certain 23¢
respondent, was appeal
under Section Municipal
Corporations Hence, this writ
petition.
2. The petitioners apparently is
.~L.”;c:_ dénetzuction erected by Ikspondcnts
= premises adjoining the petitioners’
éippropriatcly in the set back areas,
… ‘_¢~_;.’_¢.f4:_éa1,sir1g to the petifioncrs’ premises, and in
“qr which the authorities did not take acfion,
Section 321 of the Act. According to the
Counsel if the authorities initiate action in
accordance with law, the challenge to the licence issued
M
by the 1st respondent in favour of Respondexiis. _A
to erect a building on the _
survive for consideration.
3. The petitioners’ fiie, is
two fold. Firstly, the of the
CoI’D0ra.tion in e on Act in
respect of the the set back
area, caused to the
petitiones’ e_ result of the
uxlauthorised ‘Undoubtedly, as regards
_..’zhe mouse} for the 1st
that action wfll be taken in
iaw, if granted a week’s time from
_ to the second gzievanoe, the same
adjudicated either before the authorities or in
T _ ‘hit proceeding, but it is open to the petitioner to
appropriate legal proceedings before oompetent
court of law questioning the action of Rmpondents 3 to
M
5, rasmting in alleged damages to the A
property, if so advised.
Recording the submission ofbx
for the 1312 respondent, nothing *~-s_11r\r’i”v°ca=:~..fc«:V:§’
consideration in this writ
disposed of. L
KS