KANTHAMANI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to issue direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action pursuant to the final order passed under Sec. 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act1) as per Annexure-D.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondent No.4 who is the adjoining owner has commenced with construction illegally contrary to the sanction plan. The petitioner claims that as per the sanction plan, the respondent No.4 is entitled to put up construction of ground floor and first floor. However, respondent No.4 in total violation of the building sanction plan, has put up construction on ground floor plus three floors which is in contravention of the sanction plan. The petitioner immediately brought to the notice of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in regard to illegal construction made by respondent No.4. The respondent No.2pursuant to the complaint, issued a notice under Sec. 308 of the Act. Having issued a notice under the above said Sec. , however, respondent No.2 did not proceed to take further course of action and this compelled the petitioner to submit one more representation on 14/11/2018 to respondent No.1 requesting to take appropriate action.

(3.) Inspite of repeated representations, it appears respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not act on the representations and take action against the respondent No.4. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.52928/2018 to direct the respondent No.1 to take immediate steps as provided under Sec. 321 of the above said Act. The said writ petition was disposed of by recording the submissions of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 made a statement that the provisional order passed under Sec. 321(1) of the Act is confirmed under Sec. 321(3) of the Act and further course of action is contemplated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.