High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Muniakkayamma vs The Chief Officer Town Municipal on 6 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Muniakkayamma vs The Chief Officer Town Municipal on 6 April, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
11: mm; HIGH mom or KARIIATAKA, 

DATED mas ms 6th DAY 03* APRIL  ' j[j:  "' 

BEFORE

THE noxmm ma. JUSTICE   "a'n"n§D?[;-T 

wan' mmnor: 110.2639-.___ pr  1, :2 '

BETWEEN

SM'? MUNIAKKAYAMMA  " _T
we LATE V RAMAKR£SHANAvPP_A
AGED ABOUT 574'{ERAs,g "

R/O BUS_STFAND"R0:Ap,  _ '- "
VIJAYAPURATQWN 562 
DEvANA*HALL:TAw;<;%? %   % %
BANGALO--TRE.RURAL ms'rR'i<:jI:..

 -   K!  ' PETITIONER

_ (By ms. ;RAMA  35 ASSGCIATES )

1- ' -.'1'HE~CH_1E§" OFFICER

' ._f1'0m~z MUNICEPAL
'vI.;AYAPuRA TOWN 562 135,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

THE ASST. EX. ENGINEER(ELECL)
 Unrm, BESCOM,

VIJAYAPURA 562 135,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICI'.

3 THE UNDER SECRETARY

MUNICIPAL ADMINSFRATION DEPT,
M.S.BUfLDING, 



VIDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE 1.

4 THE CHAIRMAN
BESCOM,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 1.

5 THE camp SECRETARY  _ . 
GOVERNMENT OF' KA.RNATAKA;._ . 
VIDHANA SOUDHA,"  '--  L  .. '-
DRAMBEDKAR VEEDPE1 5 '
BANGALORE'-1_.  -- " .  1  
 '    RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: H 3 NAMYAN, .A'm.r AFGRV-R1'  )
(BY 312;. 3; j; @1313?-A;,.,,Anv"FoR*-R2 85 ea)
(BY SRI. R DEVADASIL} AGAFOR R5)"

THIS WRIT .PETI'TlO«N 21$ FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 UP' THEV"CONSF.lT_UTION OF lNDiA PRAYING TO
DIRECT 'FHE""R1'TO._RENE--W THE LICENCE GRANTED AS
PER  PLAN ANDVSTAY THE OPERATION OF ANX--L, EYE'.

 - 2%1~1?%%@6,8ND E'I'<'.»-%      « «

 '  TH'I.S"PE?1;i'iTION, COMING ON FOR PRLHEARING m

'B'. e.RQ'U?;~.r1fH1fs-BAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

ORDER

x j “I’l§c._f3etitioner proposed to erect a 1st floor over the

VA gonad floor, of the premises and obtained a

j 3g;;iction of building plan fiom the lat mspondent. It is the

Uassertion of the petitioner as the gonad floor was not

capable of taking the load of the 1st floor, the petitioner

Mi

erected cement concrete pillars from the _«

support the 1st floor, though Dis , t’1§:¥;
forthcoming from the sanction of ” ‘ n K

2. The petitioner alleging mfipévhdézgt was
not justified in issuing «datcdH§1″.n1.2006,
Azmexure L, dimcting the up further
conshuction, has pggfcnéd rm:-; pe£ifiL;:n.,fq;{i (a) a direction
to renew the quash Annexun:-L
endorsezficni ‘viii diiection to the 211.:
respondcfit uto supply to the pcfitionefs

bu:ildiI;g;_ (c) respondents not to meddle

‘V Vwiitb. award costs of the petition.

_ tiiic pendency of this petition, by order

_dated””–2.5–,’2{}0’:? Anncxures L and M Wen: stayed, pursuant

counsel for the 21″‘ respondent submits,

power supply was restored to the petitioner’s

»?m.1’Li§ding. According to the learned counsel for the 1st

~ « iespondt:n!: though the building was Enoompletc on the

date of endorsement Annexure L, nevert]:1ck:s$, thereafter

H

directed tr: consider the same, pass orders thereofi afl-ti: H

action, in accordance with law. In tt’;e””e’vcz1t, t;he_.

found to be tmauthofizcd, 1iberty “is

respondent to disconnect the sfiiipljr of

unauthorized consfiuction.

The pefiniog; ‘e;;;.:~.;:1:1:ng1y; ” ‘

5d/–

A ‘ Iudge

csg