R PRAKASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 03.12.2010. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to demolish the temple which is indicated in the said order, keeping in view the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) WHILE assailing the said order, two contentions are urged. Firstly that there was no opportunity to the petitioner and the order passed is therefore not sustainable. Secondly, it is contended that the authority which has passed the order did not have the jurisdiction to do so inasmuch as the authority, as indicated in the Government order dated 17.2.2010, alone can pass the order. It is in that context contended that the order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) FIRSTLY with regard to lack of opportunity as contended by the petitioners, a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.12.2010 in the light of the objection statement filed, would indicate that a notice dated 30.10.2010 is stated to have been issued and since no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner with regard to the authorized manner in which the temple has been constructed, the order has been passed against the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner has in fact produced a copy of the said notices which is said to have been issued by respondents 3 and 4 and it is the contention that the said notice was not personally served on the petitioner or any of the authorized persons of the petitioner, but, it had been displayed by affixing the same which came to their notice belatedly. On immediately coming to know of the same, the petitioner is stated to have made representation as at Annexure-C dated 29.11.2010. In that regard, keeping in view the contentions which have been put forth in the said representation and since the same had been made by the petitioner prior to the order dated 03.12.2010, the same require consideration. In any event, the respondents No.3 and 4 have not placed any material on record to indicate that there was personal service on the petitioner. Therefore on this aspect itself, the order passed would not be sustainable.