B.M. PRAKASH SON OF B.M. MUNIKRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNSEL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER@RESPON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI S. Mahesh, learned Counsel accepts notice for respondent No. 4. Since the respondents are now served and the matter lies in a narrow compass, the petition itself is taken up for consideration with the consent of the learned Counsel and disposed of by this order.

(2.) SRI Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 24.03.2010 would contend that the said order on the face of it would indicate that the petitioner has not been given opportunity and an unilateral decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned senior counsel refers to the proviso to Section 42(10) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short the 'KMC Act') to point out that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) SRI R. Devadas, learned Government Advocate would point out that the very manner in which the Deputy Commissioner has recorded the proceedings in the impugned order would disclose that the petitioner had been provided opportunity, but he has failed to utilise the same. When serious allegations were made against the petitioner and when he was called upon to reply and when the petitioner does not choose to reply to the same, the Deputy Commissioner would be left with no other alternative, but to come to a conclusion on the available material As such, in the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner in that view has come to his conclusion in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the said order does not call for interference.