SARITA SEQUEIRA W/O. RONALD MONTERIO Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND MADHUKAR MALLY S/O. K.S. MALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the Petitioner is that her representations vide Annexures -K, K3, M and P, dated 3.12.2010, Nil, 14.1.2011 and 31.1.2011 respectively, are not being considered by Respondent No. 1 and that Respondent No. 1 is not completing the enquiry proceedings initiated in No. E2/BA/89/2009 -10 in respect of the alleged violation of building bye -laws by Respondent No. 3.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 has constructed an apartment building violating the building bye -laws and other statutory norms. In that context, the Petitioner has made representations as per Annexures -K, K3, M and P, dated 3.12.2010, Nil, 14.1.2011 and 31.1.2011 respectively, before Respondents 1 and 2, According to the Petitioner, those representations are not considered in proper manner. Her further grievance is that the enquiry initiated in No. E2/BA/89/2009 -10 is not being conducted properly and that the Petitioner is not heard in the matter.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the enquiry proceedings are initiated based on the representations made by the Petitioner before the first Respondent. Copy of the order sheet maintained by the enquirying officer is produced at Annexure -N to the writ petition. According to the Petitioner, she was not heard in the matter, whereas the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 submits that an ample opportunity is given to the Petitioner and she is not co -operating during the enquiry. Sri Viswajith Shetty, brings to the notice of the Court that the matter is already heard and reserved for orders. The aforementioned submissions of Mr. Vishwajith Shetty are supported by, Sri B.L. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 3 by contending that the matter is reserved for orders after hearing the Petitioner.