ADITI JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following relief's;

(2.) It is the specific of the petitioners that on 10.04.2013, building plan was sanctioned by the respondents in their favour to put up construction of residential complex. Pursuant there to the petitioners have put up residential complex in accordance with sanctioned plan after taking necessary precautions. When the matter stood thus, the respondents passed the impugned order at Annexure-A canceling the sanction plan and licence issued in favour of the petitioners by invoking Section 443(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the building does not have sufficient structural stability. Subsequently, the respondents also issued impugned notice at Annexure-D dated 25.03.2019 to the petitioners as to why action should not be taken against the petitioners pursuant to revocation of the building plan and license. Despite the petitioners having submitted their reply at Annexure-E dated 03.04.2019, the respondents are proceeding further in the matter and as such the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present writ petitions.

(3.) In addition to re-iterating the various contentions put forth in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to the additional documents at Annexure-F, G, H and J produced by the petitioners in order to contend that the reports at Annexure-F, G, H clearly indicate that there was complete stability of the building and that the respondents were not justified it in canceling and revoking the sanction plan and license. Learned counsel also pointed out that a perusal of Anneuxre-R2 will indicate that the respondents themselves had requested the S.D.M. Engineering College to submit a report with regard to the stability of the building and that the said college has submitted its report along with letter dated 14.07.2020 (Annexure-H) to the effect that there is stability in the building. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-A and the impugned notice at Annexure-D deserves to be quashed by this Court.