K. VENKATACHALAM Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was visited with the impugned notice dtd. 28/12/2015 at Annexure 'A' issued by the second respondent-Health Officer, Jayanagar Sub-Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, wherein it was alleged that complaints have been received stating that the petitioner has been utilizing the building in question for commercial purposes. It is stated in the notice that the area in question being a purely residential area, no commercial activity was permissible. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to explain why action should not be taken in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner caused a reply dtd. 4/1/2016, within a few days after receipt of the impugned notice. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner obtained a sanction plan dtd. 26/8/2009 for putting up construction of ground, first and second floors for the purposes of IT/BT/BPO and for residential purpose. The petitioner stated that the construction has been put up in terms of the sanction plan and therefore no action could be taken against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel would further submit that it appears that the immediate cause for the impugned notice may be certain directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in various Public Interest Litigations, including W.P.No.3676/2008 and connected matters. Nevertheless, since the petitioner had obtained a sanction plan for putting up a construction for the purposes of IT/BT/BPO and residential purpose, no fault can be found with the petitioner. However, the apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent-Health Officer may proceed to reject the submissions of the petitioner and cause damage to the building.