{"id":121932,"date":"2010-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-07-22T06:21:55","modified_gmt":"2014-07-22T00:51:55","slug":"ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 27\" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010\nBEFORE\nTHE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGEREJII I\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.328S4 OF 2010 \u00bb(\u00bbLi3>_-RES_I)m\"\" \n\nC\/w WRIT PETITION Nos.e368--6369\/2010;;I0863--..IO.sS-:7,'-EOIIO._\"7' I\n1086840869\/2010, 10870-10874\/2010 AND, 1O;37E4-108176\/2010;-.,,.,, \n\nIn WRIT PETITION N0..32854 OF \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nM\/S VARUNI ICE PLANT\n\nAREGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM -. I\n\nUDDINAHITHLU    . \n\nKODAVOOR POST ,   _.   ~ :\n\nUDUPI 576 106 H _. _   _  \" \n\nBY ITS MANAGING        PETITIONER\n\n(BY SR1 PUTTIGEVII  '\nAND: I I\nUDUPICITY I\u00abI\u00a7--INICIPALITY'\u00ab--w  ..... \n\nBY ITS COM N--ISSI'ONER\nUDUPI__57\u20ac:}'Il.Q1     _  RESPONDENT\n\n:;.(_Bv SRIN.PRASSAD7Hv_IE_GD'E ADVOCATE)\n\nTHIS I\\A;'RI\"i'V:I3ETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE\n\n CONSTITUTION\"  INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT\n  AT AE\\tNEX~iV| ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.\n\n\n\nZN')\n\nIn WRIT PETITION Nos.6368~--6369\/2010:\n\n1. ANIL v SALIYAN\nAGE 39 YEARS\nS\/O VASU T BANGERA\n'INCHARA' UDDINA HITHLU\nKOOAVOOR, UDUPI\n2. HARISH 3 SUVARNA\nAGE 49 YEARS\nS\/O}.S.MALPE  .    \nMALPE POST, UDUPI DISTRICT '    V ...,RET1T;_'ONER:S\n\n(BY SR1. MENAGESH, ADVOCATE)\n\nAND:\n\n1. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE\nGOVERNMENT     _ \nURBAN OEVELORMENT\u00bb..O'E.RAVRTM_ECNT.._  \nVIDHANA SOuOHA__  \" \u00bb .  \nBANGALORE 5STeEe_01~._\n\n2. THE COMM1S'S1O--NER..\"' .     ' -\nURBAN OEvELORM.ENT-- AUT\u00a7*!ORI'__FY'\u00bb..' \nUDUPI  ~   .. \n\n3. GOVIND\/A4KU'I\\3DAR \" __\n   ..... \n<\/pre>\n
AGE MA,JO’R  j
\nBYLA;<ER'E.,.. T<QOAvOOR_
\nuOuRI.g ' * " *.\u00bb<\/p>\n
 v\u00ab:i;"~"'r\u00bb1,\/S VARLJNI ICE REANT<\/p>\n
 UDDINAHITHLU POST<\/p>\n
\u00bb\u00a7RObAvOOR"_T<\/p>\n
_ ._UDU.Pl*57_6 :06<\/p>\n
v._'BYTTS,MA'NAGING PARTNER  RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
\u00ab  R;.DEvOAS, AGA FOR R1;\n<\/p>\n
SR}-;v–K.P.PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;<\/p>\n
  SR1. PUTTIGE R RAMESH, ADVOCATE. FOR R3–R4)<\/p>\n
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
\n227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE<\/p>\n
ORDER PASSED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOvERN_’M.EjA;T,~.._
\nURBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE DATED O6&,.Q_2″.2VO1.D’A. 2<\/p>\n
AS PER ANNEX–F.\n<\/p>\n
In WRIT PETITION Nos.1B863-67\/2010, 1:33’6:sT–G69’\/2oTj.jt5VI:   <\/p>\n
1. NAGAPPA GANIGAR<\/p>\n
AGE 59 YEARS<\/p>\n
S\/O SHESHA GANIGA
\n‘SAIDHAM’, N0.14\u00bb31
\nUDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
\nUDUPI 576106<\/p>\n
2. SMT.JALAJA GANIGAR   \u00ab
\nAGE 72 YEARS   _  ‘
\nW\/OJANARDHANA GAN–IuGA_R ;_ V
\nNo.14\/53, ‘JANARDHANALNILAYA’   ‘   <\/p>\n
UDDINA HITLU, KQ’DA’J_OOv-PL~_ ‘
\nUDUPIS76106 ‘ ” V <\/p>\n
3. SMT.SUSHEELA ‘<\/p>\n
AGE 49 YEARS I E.  =
\nW\/O EAYARAMVPOOJARY *
\nNo.14–3O (2) I I   _
\nUDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR  ‘
\nUDUP1576\u00a7106. ‘  ‘<\/p>\n
4. LAKKARPA’SA’LIA’rA”N_
\nAGE 49.Y’E.ARS  ‘T I .\n<\/p>\n
S\/O’S.1D.Du S1J:\\f\u00ab.ARNA.v <\/p>\n
 DURGASHREE NIELAYA. ‘<\/p>\n
“‘~w’No.14–4:L.gA-1  O’ ‘<\/p>\n
 UDDINA HSITLUA, KODAVOOR<\/p>\n
-\u00ab..2’_:’:U\u00abDUE?I 576 136:.\n<\/p>\n
 ~ I _\u00bb S “S.MT\u00a7 ” S.HVA’R.A DA<\/p>\n
AGE 35YEARS<\/p>\n
2′ 1′.’j~-W”\/O DIWAKARA KOTIYAN<\/p>\n
I ROO.P.\u00a3\\SHREE NIVAS, No.2.-149<\/p>\n
I ‘ —  A UDDENA HITLU, KODAVOOR
\n US-UPPI 575 105<\/p>\n
6. KITTA POOJARY<\/p>\n
AGE 45 YEARS<\/p>\n
S\/O CHEENKRA POOJARY
\nABHIJIT NILAYA, !\\EO.2-151
\nUDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
\nUDUPI 576 106<\/p>\n
PRADEEP V SUVARNA
\nAGE 49 YEARS<\/p>\n
S\/O LATE VASU R SUVARNA   –\n<\/p>\n
SUGANDHA KASTURI I
\nNo.14\/41, UDDINAHITLU
\nKODAVOOR, UDUPI 576 1636<\/p>\n
(BY SRI. M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE)<\/p>\n
AND:\n<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
. GOVENDA K_UN1′)_AR ‘V<\/p>\n
}–~E}DAY KUMAR . .\n<\/p>\n
 AGE 42 YEARS\u00bb;\n<\/p>\n
_ _j~S\/Q GOVINDA KEJNDAR
\n‘BAILKERE, KOGAVOOR POST
\n‘:”’VU’D’U.I’D:E ‘ A<\/p>\n
 V ‘\\\/I’3AY…_PRAKASH
\n1;-._AG\u00abE 37 YEARS
\n  S\u00bb\/0. NAGAPRA M KOTIYAN
\n “RjAT VIJAYASHANKAR<\/p>\n
UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GovER;_N’ME-N.1”;’<\/p>\n
URBAN DEVELOPMENT D.EPARTM.ENT=, ‘<\/p>\n
VIDHANA SOUDHA   3’  .4  –\n<\/p>\n
BANGALORE 01     = \n\n. THE CoMMISS1o:\\;ER.V\"'T~\"\n\nURBAN DEVEE_C)PMENT  \nUDUPI .L . 'a *' _*u'\n\nS\/.\u20ac,'.SUVARE'J.AV '\n\nAGE MAJOR  ,\nBYLAK ERE, _ KO D'AvO_O~-R. _\nuDu#1\"_.'1;%_~'a ;\n\n 1;'.--.PET1TI:Q_N'E'RS V\n\n\n\nKODAVOOR\nUDUPI DISTRICT\n\n6. HARISH KANCHAN\n\nAGE 34 YEARS\n\nS\/O SANJEEVA KODIYAN\n\nR\/A ADILAKSHMI\n\nUDDENAHITLU\n\nKODAVOOR\n\nUDUPI DISTRICT  _\n\n7. RAMACHANDRA KARKERA\nAGE 39 YEARS\nS\/O GIRIYA AMEEN .\u00bb      \n<\/pre>\n
MALPE, UDUPI DISTRICT   …RESI?OvND~–ENTS<\/p>\n
(BY SRI. RDEVDAS, AGA FOR R1;   —- _
\nSRI. I<.RRASAD HEGDE, ADvOCA'T.E FOR R2';  ' .
\nSRI. PUTTIGE R RAMESH, ADVOCATE 'F_OVR\u00e9R34R.f\/T' <\/p>\n
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED"U!\\\u00a5DER..A,R'l'ICLES'=226 & 227 OF
\nTHE CONSTITUTION OE.v'INO_'IA R_RAxI..NG-.TO.ij~QuASH THE ORDER
\nPASSED BY THE uNDE.R~._SEI:'RE'I',ARv "TO THEI,GOv'E'RNMENT, URBAN
\nDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,'"'BA_NGA.LOR\u00abE__"DATED 6.2.2010 AS PER<\/p>\n
ANNEX–F AND ETC.   :.\n<\/p>\n
In wan PETI’rION._:\u00a7Ios.’1o8′:%o-,.i4._[261o AND 10875-76\/2010:<\/p>\n
1. SHEKAR I<A_RI<ERA
\nAOEA6 YEARSV '
\nS','.O NARAYAN *
\n'NIRQN', 'No.14-29+.A  _
\nU DDINA' HIT i.;',J_," ~.*I<_CJ['JA.\\\/('__f,.OR
\n. . UDUPI S.76–._I~o5' I\n<\/p>\n
2., ‘vA.MAN P SOVARNA’  ‘
\n AGE 52 YEARS
\n\u00abI..SS\/O RAPPA KUNOAR
\nI _N’OI.1’4,\/3AO:A–2, ‘RANJITHA NILAYA’
\n, *._DD_DI~NA._zrm*\u00ab\u00a7..u, KODAVOOR
\n”  UDUPI 576 -106<\/p>\n
 ‘SI%%;’TII\\I.INTODHA P SUVARNA<\/p>\n
\u00a33.\n<\/p>\n
AGE 35 YEARS<\/p>\n
W\/O PRAKASH SUVARNA
\n“PRAKRUTHI”\n<\/p>\n
UDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
\nUDUPI S376 106<\/p>\n
PRAKASH<\/p>\n
AGE 46 YEARS<\/p>\n
S\/O KESHAV GANIGAR<\/p>\n
SRI DEVI KRIPA NILAYA
\nUDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
\nUDUPI 576 106<\/p>\n
HARISH<\/p>\n
AGE 28 YEARS<\/p>\n
S\/O MADHAVA GANIGAR
\nKRISHNA NILAYA No.14-35
\nUDDINA HITLU, KODAVOOR
\nUDUPI 576 106<\/p>\n
SUNDAR PALAN
\nAGE 53 YEARS _
\nS\/O BABU 3Ars:G.E,RA’..G_ ‘ ”\n<\/p>\n
BHAGAvATH1[a\\:ILAYEA.;E\u00bb _<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
UDDINA HITLVU, KODAVC}{)R:”A  <\/p>\n
UDUPI 576 106-. .\n<\/p>\n
PRAVEEN
\nAGE 42 YEARS _<\/p>\n
s,tO. CHAMJRA _AM1_N ”   ….. 14 \u00bb<\/p>\n
SHIVA NILAYA’* <\/p>\n
No’.:4\/2V3;’ UDD_INGAvHITL_U, KODAVOOR<\/p>\n
UDUPE. 5’26 1*o..Ej*–._ ”\n<\/p>\n
 A  <\/p>\n
.”frHE COMMISSIONER<\/p>\n
…PETITIONERS<\/p>\n
  sRI.’M_.’E.NA.GE$.HE; ADVOCATE)<\/p>\n
, UNDERSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT<\/p>\n
.’j-URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT<\/p>\n
V VI_’DH.ANGA SOUOHA
\n BANGALORE 01<\/p>\n
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
\nUDUPI<\/p>\n
3′ GOVINDA KUNDAR
\nSIC) SUVARNA
\nAGE MAEOR
\nBYLAKERE, KODAVOOR
\nUDUPI <\/p>\n
4. UDAY KUMAR
\nAGE 42 YEARS
\nSKO GOVINDA KUN DAR
\nBAILKERE, KODAVOOR POST
\nUDUPI<\/p>\n
5. VIJAY PRAKASH
\nAGE 37 YEARS   \u00ab
\nS,fO NAGAPPA M KOTIYAN  _  ‘
\nRIAT \\!I3AYASHANKAR.–.   V
\nKODAVOOR, UDUPI      <\/p>\n
6. HARISH KANCHANE .3 ”\n<\/p>\n
AGE 34 YEARS ….   =:;,__,<\/p>\n
S\/O SANJEEVA KOOnjA_N 7′; ‘
\nR\/AAOILARs’::;:M1._ – V
\nUDDINAE-iITLU,l\u00a2KO.DA\\\/COR”.V ” R.
\nUDUPI DISTRICT\u00bb, .\n<\/p>\n
7. RAMACHANORA KARI<:&=RA"\n<\/p>\n
A6539 YEARS. ‘ .   …..\n<\/p>\n
SfO GIRIYA AMEEN
\nMA’:..,RE,_U–OuUE.Iv OISTVRTQT  RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
(Ev SR1. ‘R,O’E.vO;A’s;?A–GA;;’FOR R1;
\n ‘—=SRI. K.FRASAD .HE\u00a3\u00a7DE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;<\/p>\n
 SR1. PUTT’IGE=fR RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R7)<\/p>\n
\u00abWRIT ‘PETITIONS.’ FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 & 227 OF<\/p>\n
:*.’T;’~1_’E_cOf\u00a7%:sTI’:*UT:Ow OF INDEA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
\nA. “..”-RASSEO Esf~\/’Er’:-.-\u00abe’E UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, URBAN
\n DE’-JELGPMEENT AUTHORETY, BANGALORE DTD 06.02.2910 As PER<\/p>\n
  V  AN?~.’E}\u20ac:E,_ <\/p>\n
 ALL THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
\n‘-HEARING ma B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT’ MAOE THE FOLLOWING:<\/p>\n
QRDER<\/p>\n
W.P.No.3285\u00ab<i\/V2010 is filed by M\/s.Varuni <\/p>\n
challenging the endorsement, dated 29.07.2010  0'<\/p>\n
issued by the Udupi City Municipality. Fu"rthe'r\u00abit'l–.has  <\/p>\n
mandamus to the said Municipality' to is.su'e_l.the.'s_aAncti'one.d-~00'<\/p>\n
building plan to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2. W.P.Nos.6368–369, 10’a–\u00e9.3+.8’a%7;.;.y’10’a5.a\u00a7’8a9, 10870-874<\/p>\n
and 10875-876 of 2010’are fiied”‘i5y:’l:hle..re_sid.en.t.s:’.v0l the locality<\/p>\n
challenging the okayei\u00e9flrglelhll; oat\u00e9d 06.02.2010
\n(Annexure–F)  the ‘Udupi Urban
\nDevelopment  of land use from the
\nmaster plan — from:_resiVde*n:tial Ltis’e..:..tol.l.industriai use for setting up
\nthe ice plantgnlith. certa’in._l_c:olndirtions.<\/p>\n
Iipwopuld\ufb02  up the petitions filed by the residents<\/p>\n
 thellllloca-I.ityV.” confusion regarding their ranks in<\/p>\n
different pet’l”tions., the Varuni Ice Plant, petitioner in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
  hereinafter referred to as the petitioner<\/p>\n
0’ proponent and the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.6368-<\/p>\n
 other connected petitions are referred to as the<\/p>\n
“”,p}:–titioner residents.\n<\/p>\n
F233.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
4. Sri M.E.l\\lagesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
residents brings to my notice the earlier view of the
\nDevelopment Authority contained in its letter, dated   .
\naddressed to the petitioner project propo.ne_nt. _–“‘Th’a:t_’;v.fo’rT3′  <\/p>\n
reasons, his request for the change of lancllyus\u00e9iftom.residentialyxi’<\/p>\n
to industrial purpose was turned dowii._’\u00bb:\u00ab.l,.,..\n<\/p>\n
a) The road width is only  4_ p\u00e9ir the
\nguidelines the road width of 12
\nmeters in industrial a~reas.:fl: A  it it A.\n<\/p>\n
b) Public 1-the._.es”ta’biV:\u00a7h’hwent of the ice
\nplant. “””  .. ,  ,  . . .\n<\/p>\n
c) The :’l.ocali*tyVlai.ls-_:vvith’i’vn\u00e9:’:th.e*residential zone as per the
\nrevised  l     it
\n Sriv\ufb01iagyesh  without there being any change<\/p>\n
in the AcVi’rcuVm_st’an-eves,__ the respondent Urban Development<\/p>\n
IjA_utvhorit’y~.reverwseljg:_itS.:;.”e.arlier view and passed the resolution
\nrecjommendli\u00e9ngy  Government for giving the clearance under
\nittea.’c5’jfs.:tr;esAfcarhataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961
\ns,  called the ‘KTCP Act’ for short). The learned counsel<\/p>\n
 the respondent Urban Development Authority has<\/p>\n
@534.\n<\/p>\n
“13. uses that are permitted under special <\/p>\n
circumstances by the Authority:\n<\/p>\n
Municipal, State and Central Government offices, puljlic <\/p>\n
utility buildings, cemeteries, golf clubs, banks, in<\/p>\n
homes, hospitals for human care, (with: a” minirrium,sita’l<\/p>\n
area of 750 sq. mtrs and the site is abutting–r’a\u00abroa’dV’of <\/p>\n
minimum 12 mtr width), philanthropic usesffuel storage A’<\/p>\n
depots, \ufb01lling stations (excludin’g_:”i?etrolit ttunlrs, <\/p>\n
\ufb01lling), service industries with poweriiiup to_,_v10 HP {for all
\nthe above industries and ‘those as  –\u00abthei’lisMt given
\nSchedule–I, power required forlair’~con’ditiohing,” lifts and
\ncomputers are excluded frorn’Hl9::”s_oecii”ied taco}\/9), power
\nloom for silk twistin;:’~'(l~’D, to “Hi5; .pio’vide\u00a7:l the noise
\ngenerated shall  v”pre.scribed by the
\nMinistry of,._.EnVviron;n:=,en_t  For.est,~\u00a7’ Government of
\nIndia, gas _cvlirid–er,__Vs.torag\u00e9?-.._PFovided it satisfies all
\nrequired norms of. and software computer
\noffices and :’nformation._ ‘technology related activities
\nprovided “the site’-\u00bbisV’abutting a road of minimum 12 in<\/p>\n
iV’width,.t._chatlcafe centres,” ‘doctors consulting room, office<\/p>\n
ltof Vad’.(oca,te\u20ac,’\u00ab..other profession in public interest nor<\/p>\n
e.$&ceeo’ing”v.?U.,,gsqVlV.l:in’;’ provided the applicant himself is a
\nprofessional,.  & use toilets and Service apartments,<\/p>\n
‘vehicle parking including multilevel car parking. In<\/p>\n
.44″*i${iu=!t5–jstoreyed Residential Apartments, shops &<\/p>\n
if  i6To::e_ra.i stores of 10% the Total carpet area of the<\/p>\n
hi”  ___ ” ‘ ‘lbuilding. “‘<\/p>\n
HBH<\/p>\n
n<\/p>\n
:3\n<\/p>\n
8. The learned counsel has also relied on the Division<\/p>\n
Bench decision of this Court in the case of of<\/p>\n
H..V.VIJAYARAGHAVAN 81 OTHERS V. MALATHI DAS 8:<\/p>\n
0THERS., reported in 2009 (4) xcca 2313 (as) to buttress<\/p>\n
his submission that the change proposed should <\/p>\n
contravention of any provisions of the Act.<\/p>\n
9. Sri Puttige R.Ramesh, the |ea=,rned..,\u00abciouns\u00e9.l’<\/p>\n
petitioner project proponent submitsr’t.h”at <\/p>\n
Development Authority vide its Notifica’tixon,tdated.,VV:20:5.(l9.2009
\ncalled for the objections from,_”t–he–‘_:pu\u00a7b|i”c*\u00ab..,to.,i”‘the proposal for<\/p>\n
setting up theticlel  thewpevtitioner residents filed
\nthe objections aftter  time and some of the
\npetitioners, who filed the.,o’–bjectVi’o’ns within the prescribed period
\nof i’ime..stulo,sequ-ently withd”revv them and some of the petitioner<\/p>\n
residents” the objections at all. Thus in effect,<\/p>\n
‘j.ta=ccording’to’ Sri..R’a’n1esh, no valid or surviving objections were<\/p>\n
– –fil.!’etd.,_by..,any of the petitioner residents. He also submits that the<\/p>\n
 p~etition”er, project proponent through Sri Govihda Kundar has<\/p>\n
 executed the gift deed, dated 26.02.2010 in favour of<\/p>\n
htidupi Municipality for widening of the road by 6 meters. He<\/p>\n
FISH.\n<\/p>\n
also brings to my notice, the existence of as many as 26 ice
\nplants in the vicinity of the site where the petitioner project<\/p>\n
proponent proposes to set up its ice plant. He takes exceptit-in<\/p>\n
to the selective objection being raised by the be<\/p>\n
residents.\n<\/p>\n
10. Sri Ramesh further submits that\ufb02thel\u00abKa’–rnataAl\u00a7a\u00ab__State <\/p>\n
Pollution Control Board has already’given:__its_consent”for <\/p>\n
establishment of the ice plant. He alsv-oibrings to my_”‘:1o’t–lce”this<\/p>\n
Court’s decision in the case of”._B.R,\u00ab3I\\L’I’GA”eAND”OTHERS V.<\/p>\n
% TOWN MUNICIPAL couNcIL,’plbi3s?I,l |:_)Q.ii\u00a7t;’t::’isfrRIcT AND<\/p>\n
ANOTHR, repovl’ted..inyeisisgasl.(4jjee’i\u00a7ai\u00a5.’L-;aV–si:o8, wherein it is held
\nthat if the  of land use is to be made
\nContrary to the (ill)-P_no.rpiannlng authority, may with
\nthe_.\u00ab~”:”\u00ab’lfy\u20ac\u00a7vio,!J:”s\u00ab:. ‘Va3{,3V’l3rovaV.l”‘of…._t_he State Government, allow such<\/p>\n
changes .,the_y4″la’_r;d”use or development as provided under<\/p>\n
 ‘ Secti on i”-‘l~;i’\u00bb.= Qofitihiepj  Act.<\/p>\n
 ‘:3 ‘Sr.,i Eibevdas, the learned Additional Government<\/p>\n
 appearing for the Government submits that if the<\/p>\n
‘VV.,fe’p..etit’ione’r residents’ argument that no change of land use is<\/p>\n
\ufb02\ufb01ll<\/p>\n
J5
\npermissible under Section 14–A of the KTCP Act, then the<\/p>\n
provisions would be rendered otiose or nugatory. He also
\nsubmits that the Government has followed the procedure<\/p>\n
prescribed while giving its approval to the Urban Development<\/p>\n
Authority’s resolution\/proposal for the change of land by<\/p>\n
the residential purpose to industrial purpose. Granting: such”  <\/p>\n
relaxation in the changed circumstances is”vve’|’I”w_it’hin.;the’porwer <\/p>\n
of the Government, so submits Sri Devdasf\n<\/p>\n
12. He further submits that the f’acTts.of Gri ragihlavan<\/p>\n
(supra) and the facts of the pres_ent.<ia'se{are"o-entirely"'di'fferent.<\/p>\n
In Vijayaraghgu\/a'n~.\u00abit 'he_l"d"" that the Government
\ncannot interferewlitlh  upon a Development
\nAuthority. In there is no interference or
\nintF_Rlsi47.r.7  i3.'0weAr"s~o.f…t\u00abhe Urban Development Authority.<\/p>\n
On the 'other. proposal\/resolution passed by the said<\/p>\n
:i:':'aso__t.hority"i.s"'appVroved.'s:'by the State Government in accordance<\/p>\n
A _ igh-thy law.\n<\/p>\n
  S’ri_ K”‘.Prasad Hegde, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
 Udupi Urban Development Authority and Udupi City<\/p>\n
hat[fl’-4l.uAni'<:i.p.a'|'ity submits that a number of industries have already<\/p>\n
HBH.\n<\/p>\n
[6<\/p>\n
come up in the locality in question. He also confirms the giving<\/p>\n
of the land by the petitioner project proponent for the forrnatioi<i_<\/p>\n
of 12 meter wide road.\n<\/p>\n
14. Sri Nagesh, in the course of hisr’ejo’indeif., sip-bbrtii.tsV:thfe’i~t <\/p>\n
when the objections are not filed or withdr’ayvlnj_A’there <\/p>\n
impediment for the petitioner residen’~t:s””to rile the..vvritVV”pVeti’tion.
\nIn this regard, he relied on the Apex,-Cotirtfsudeecisionin the case
\nof S.N.CHANDRASHEKAR AND’  sum: or
\nKARNATAKA AND  3 scc 203.\n<\/p>\n
He relied on the  canvassing another
\nproposition too}  landieusye must conform to the<\/p>\n
revised masteriplan.’  in<\/p>\n
15. T4lje”si.ibmis’si._ons’ ofthe learned counsel have received<\/p>\n
 corisiVVde.ration’i””\u00e9 I do not propose to reject the<\/p>\n
 petitions ‘\u00abfi.leld~v-iv\u00e9ijyxi t!?i’e.~:”petitioner residents on the preliminary<\/p>\n
V’gobjvections'”~raised -biysri P.R.Ramesh, just because some of the<\/p>\n
‘ Vshavewtiled objections after the expiry of the prescribed<\/p>\n
 ‘o_r’\u00bbha:ve not filed the objections or filed the objections but<\/p>\n
  the objections, subsequently. If the coming of an<\/p>\n
 is going to affect the quality of life, Article 21 of the<\/p>\n
FISH<\/p>\n
17<\/span>
\n0<\/span><\/p>\n
Constitution of India can always be pressed into service. The<\/p>\n
right to life granted under the said Article cannot be dilut.eV_cl..,’_:o.’:_<\/p>\n
affected adversely merely because some parties have$’_:’not~5,fi!.edr.-V___”*_<\/p>\n
the objections.\n<\/p>\n
16. Section 14-A of the KTCP Act einpc.iy\u00a2rs  ‘Plarnr\u00a7l.:ng,\u00bb:Vl”<\/p>\n
Authority to allow such changes  the ‘prio.rVapwp.rov’al’V:of
\nthe State Government. In thi’s.__regE1r’d’;  be ‘b’ene-ficial to
\nrefer to the statement of objelctsland No.17 of
\n1991 by virtue of   the statute,
\nwhich states, initera_I”i-ai,”””that:..fS’ectiv’t\u00a7_n.j”{A144A prescribes the
\nmodaltties of th’e*la’nd use. Thus, the very
\nrationale or  insertion of Section 14~A of
\nthe Act is that under’certainucipelumstances, the change of land
\nus_e’r~has to’i~be,___,per_mitlted\u00abb.y..the local development authority but<\/p>\n
with”the.-priroyr of the State Government.<\/p>\n
 _ 17.”‘\u00ab\u00ab..Cla_’use,u5’lib to Annexure-I to Urban Zonning<\/p>\n
A ‘4’R.e@;iulVatioVns, the” provisions of which are extracted hereinabove is<\/p>\n
 It cannot be said that the purposes or activities<\/p>\n
 ‘notmentioned in clause lb cannot be permitted at all. The<\/p>\n
.,..,,.._ll”-\u00abregulation makers’ intentment becomes clear from the last<\/p>\n
\ufb01\ufb01lf.\n<\/p>\n
sentence of clause 1b. It provides for shops and general stores<\/p>\n
but only to the extent of 10% of the total carpet area _.of_,:’the._<\/p>\n
building in multi–storeyed residential apartments. Inthe <\/p>\n
portions of the said clause, there is no r_eference”to”‘shops  <\/p>\n
and general stores. This only shows that the o’rV:”t–heri1.r_’<\/p>\n
purpose are only inclusive; there is niopijohibitioit ,or*em\u00a7ba.rg,o.3as<\/p>\n
such for other business activities.<\/p>\n
18. The reliance on the =:\\\/i_ia_yaAra,t;;ei_1avan (supra)
\nby the petitioner residehts’ side their rescue in
\nany way. That”  Government’s
\ninterference with  i the powers of the<\/p>\n
Development A’uthoriVty.:   V<\/p>\n
 19.  ‘an.other”‘as,pect of the matter, which cannot be lost<\/p>\n
sight_ of   thejeie-xistence of as many as 26 ice plants in the<\/p>\n
ipevicinity.o’f’.__the” site of ice plant. While putting the<\/p>\n
V’.:*interpretati’on  Section 14~A of the KTCP Act, this Court in the<\/p>\n
o}t=i..3.se’iit\u00a7a (supra) has held that if the development or<\/p>\n
 use is to be made contrary to the ODP or CDP,<\/p>\n
KR”i.,_the’.,:Pi’anining Authority may, with the previous approval of the<\/p>\n
BR<\/p>\n
industry and in the course of the industrial operations, the<\/p>\n
interference of the Pollution Control Board can always be <\/p>\n
if the petitioner project proponent industry is found  .<\/p>\n
pollution. It shall also be open to the petjtione-r.”r’es~i(jen”tsv”to <\/p>\n
make a demand on the Pollution Control Board or  loVt’i:er'<1:_'<\/p>\n
competent authority to a) demand th_a_t~..tall chirnney"bel={i_ns.tal!\u00bbed %<\/p>\n
by the petitioner project proponentu:a.ndi~_c_gb)"\u00a7t,\u00a7_houfid not<\/p>\n
discharge the untreated air at the gg.roun{d ;.o'r"'rfoof'iievel, etc.<\/p>\n
22. If the pet_i’tioner re_sid_en~f:s the pollution.<\/p>\n
control measuresfit ‘ti~1e:’F?\u00e9’lVlu’ti:i.ri C;m=trol Board and other
\ncompetent bodies ‘toii\u00bbrnpo:’sVe a’m_[‘mea_su’r’e that is permissible in
\nlaw to prevent’the– pollut%.ojn_:o’\u20ac_:a’i.r:’and\/or to keep the pollution<\/p>\n
levels under .c.heck””anV_d wii;~hinv_the’wpermissible limits.<\/p>\n
 the observations and the directions<\/p>\n
7′.gg_containeci’.—-_VAhVereiv\u00bbn_a’b;.oye in the preceding paragraphs,<\/p>\n
‘vy.p4Nose\u00e9ssiiese\u00e9\/2010, 1086340867\/2010, 10868–<\/p>\n
;1u.O’8:6_9;\/2O1(u),VViO870–1O874\/2010 AND 10875-10876\/2010 are<\/p>\n
.”~”‘d%i$m’issedi.\n<\/p>\n
93%<\/p>\n
24. Now I am left with W.P.\u00a7\\lo.32854\/2010 filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner project proponent against the Udupi City Municipagl’i~ty’.~..v<\/p>\n
Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioncaiil’proj’ectI.v…._”.<\/p>\n
proponent submits that the permission to_constru_r:tthe’jbu’i’l~dVi*ng  <\/p>\n
is kept in abeyance only because the  ti:a’tVf’t–he*::yi_’\u00ab<\/p>\n
permission should not be given”l_to’~._the”~petit_ion’er{._’vprojecti<\/p>\n
proponent to construct the building. VAyI..,lairnl._afraidtheiiikiiaritior any
\nother functionary cannot  fttpteu”‘conbst–ruction of the
\nbuilding with any ratve_\u00a75f.__Succ\u00e9ss-i;i:nles\u00a7..f’.i..i’}Vt.fl:\u00e9”.P’%rmission is
\nsought on a land’  to ithlelwilparty and ii) the
\npermission so_u.ght_isf”iiot;::’_iVn Vliiivilth the building bye-
\nlaws. Otherwise, it ,t’ovl.’:preventing a party from making
\nthe beneficial use,_of the  to him. The public,
\ninvcluding  if\/lii~_,0., ha’v’e_.wceHrta:inly the right to object to the use of
\n f_or\u00ab.a~:particular purpose and not to its construction
\n  impugned endorsement issued by the
\n City””Nlu”nicip”ality on 29.07.2010 (Annexure~M) is liable to
\n  accordingly it is quashed. The said Municipality<\/p>\n
 h.erepydirected to consider the petitioner project proponent’s<\/p>\n
 plan in accordance with law and issue the same if the<\/p>\n
 ‘petitioner project proponent meets all the legal requirements.<\/p>\n
\ufb01\ufb01ri<\/p>\n
[N2
\n[NJ<\/p>\n
25. In the resuit, W.P.No.328S4\/2010 is accordingly<\/p>\n
allowed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
26. Sri K.Prasad Hegde, the learned Standing<\/p>\n
respondent is permitted to file the vaka\u00a5:\u00e91tAn’_fo*rs_vt*he<\/p>\n
udupi Cit)! Municipaiity in w.P.32854\/201031 the we\u00e9_’r:7S <\/p>\n
 %   %<\/p>\n
bvr Iv “”  ‘   1’.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri 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 \u00bb(\u00bbLi3>_-RES_I)m”” C\/w WRIT PETITION Nos.e368–6369\/2010;;I0863–..IO.sS-:7,’-EOIIO._”7′ I 1086840869\/2010, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-22T00:51:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-22T00:51:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3058,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-22T00:51:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-22T00:51:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-22T00:51:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010"},"wordCount":3058,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010","name":"M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-22T00:51:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-varuni-ice-plant-vs-udupi-city-municipality-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Varuni Ice Plant vs Udupi City Municipality on 27 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121932","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121932"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121932\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}