CHANDRAN V. Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dtd. 19/6/2023 along with the hand summons taken on respondent No.3. It is seen that respondent No.3, which is a Partnership firm has received a notice through its partner Manish Chandak on 27/4/2023. However, there is no representation for respondent No.3. Consequently, notice taken out on respondent No.3 is held sufficient.

(2.) The only grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of several complaints having been given to respondent No.2- The Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short), Vidyaranyapura, bringing to his notice the violation of the building plan at the hands of the third respondent builder, no action has been taken.

(3.) This writ petition was filed on 13/7/2018. Inspite of the respondent-BBMP accepting the notice through the learned standing counsel in the month of January- 2019, no action has been taken by the concerned officer on the complaint made by the petitioner.