K. MUNISHAMMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned notice dtd. 26/10/2021 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.3- Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kolar, calling upon the petitioner to answer or show cause as to why action should not be initiated to demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the petitioner encroaching upon the public road by about 3 feet.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri.V.Laxminarayana appearing for the petitioner submits that even as per the impugned notice only three days' time is given to the petitioner to offer an explanation as to why action should not be taken for removing the unauthorized construction. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the time granted by the respondents in the impugned notice is not reasonable. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the impugned notice is issued by the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, Kolar and whereas, in terms of the circulars issued by the State Government, wherever National Highways or State Highways pass through the limits of the Municipal Corporation, it would be the Municipal Corporation which would maintain the roads and would be the competent authority to take action if there is any encroachment on such roads. In other words, it is sought to be contended that the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department has no competence to have issued the impugned notice.

(3.) Per Contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the road in question is in the control of the Public Works Department and therefore, the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, Kolar had issued the impugned notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the widening of the road has also been taken up by the Public Works Department and not by the Corporation.