1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29114 DAY OF OCTOBER
BEFORE "
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE'. ASIIOK E. I
WRIT PETITION NO.3164I :_2'4C)jIC'"J".[IL'I_3-':IB1'I!I'F§}
BETWEEN
SR1 C.O.N.JANARDHAN
S/O SR1 C O NAGABHUSHAN '
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS__"a_
R/O No.15, 4T1-I CROSS" ~ '-
OBALAIAH COLONY '-
J.J.R NAG-AR SOUTH . 1
BANGALORE--56OQ18 2; 'V j PETITIONER
{BY__SRi:.I30;R;E_ FOR
" " -- M/S. 3: ASSOCIATES)
I. THE CO3xIMISSIOI\II§III.O4' J
VERUIIAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
I ._§_N.R..SQUA'P.E. BANGALORESBOOO2
" I2; TEE H'EA_I,T1«£ OFFICER (WEST)
~ T' 'V wI3IcI;_'IAIAT_E;ANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE--560002
3. TII,E'AS~ST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
I _ BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
' "~.SUB--DIVIS}ION, GANDHINAGAR
V' -- . .. BAN GALORE--560009 RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:K N PUT’I’E GOWDA, AI)V..)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTECE DATED 8.7.2010 VEDE ANNEXURE–D
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT N013 AND ETC.
THES PB3’1’I’i’ION COMING ON FOR PRELit§1:i§iAai«f
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE Foi;LOWi1_\}e;;.v %
The petitioner has sought’
notice, dated 8-7-2010 [Annexi1re~’ID.)V’i’ssued.~i§y:
respondent.
2. Sri Dore 1earI’r-editeounsei appearing
for M / s.G.Sukumaran.~~-&.._ Associates ‘the petitioner
submits tha_f,.,, peti’tior1_er discharging his
ob1igations’_’ public toilets to the
satisfaction of He submits that proper
explanation is given whenever some stray complaints of
in the iinkeep of the toilets were filed.
V ii”,-‘.W:”‘~«._:’fhve-ilearned counsel submits that the Iocai
M.I};-A. .-__”Wants the entrustment of the maintenance of
toilets to one Sri K.Suresh Babu and that it is
(M.L.A.’s) instance that the contract executed by
E “the BBMP in favour of the petitioner is being
terminated.
QEH
3
4. Sri K.N.Puttegowda, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submits that, aSvv.C)l;l.::4lli1{).W
no firm cause of action has accrued to the__;’petitiro:ncr.
He prays for the rejection of the “petition”‘ovn:~the::s<hortl4 'w
ground of the petition being prema'ture.l'ea.._hli4}Ile'-
that the petitioner has given the reply to the l..i1n.,pggl§ned
notice. His reply would be lantllvlapppiropriate
orders would be passetlllilif .tlie I10? Yet P3355"-
He further sutniiits terminated,
fresh contract calling for the
telldelf: . . . . pp ' 'V p
' the learned counsel for the
petitionerfin vt.he._course~'l'of his rejoinder, submits that
«. no._'oi:der' on Anr"1eXu.re»D is passed.
' impugned notice only states that the
been working negligently and that
lx_therefor'e_ the Environmental Officerwrespondent No.3
recommend to the higher authorities for the
cancellation of the petitioners contract. Such a notice
cannot be said to be without the authority of law.
HEM.
4
Therefore, the Writ petition challenging the Very
issuance of the notice is not entertainable.
7. This petition is rejected with a
the respondents to consider the petitioners.__:oh}’e.etions’i
at Annexure–E (1437-2010) and
if the orders are not yet passed.
8. If, as and when’th’e~..orders are the = L’
third resporidenfs notice the
petitioner’s reply at petitioner may
exercise his 1ibr;r”Ly_of
” in this petition is rejected as
premature)» orde1r_as..tio costs.
36/5
Iudgi”
‘QVGR