RAJASHEKHARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the application for the sanctioning of building plans. As the respondent 3 is insisting for filing an affidavit in Form III as a precondition for the grant of approval for the building plan, this petition is instituted. Sri Sadiq N. Goodwala, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit in Form III is not prescribed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the KMC Act', for short) or the building bye -laws framed thereunder. He submits that this position has been clarified by the Deputy Director, Town Planning, vide his order dated 23 -6 -2009 (Annexure -G).

(2.) SRI G.I. Gachchinamath, learned Counsel for the respondent 3 submits that the insistence for the affidavit is on an uniform basis; it is not that it is being insisted only from the petitioner. He submits that under Section 299 of the KMC Act, it is open to the Corporation to call for any document. He submits that the filing of the affidavit is not infringing any of the rights of the petitioner. Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the petitioner is not furnishing any wrong or incorrect information and is not violating any provision of law, then there should not be any hesitation for the petitioner to file the affidavit. The petitioner has no objection to comply with the ten conditions enumerated in Form III (H2). His only reservation is over the last paragraph of the said form which reads as follows:

(3.) THE afore -extracted declaratory affidavit does not put the petitioner to prejudice; it only amplifies the consequence of his violating bye -laws and renders him to be proceeded against under the provisions of KMC Act and Indian Penal Code, 1860. If the petitioner does not commit any violation of law, he is nothing to be afraid of. On the other hand, if he commits the violation of any penal law, he would be inviting the prosecution even in the absence of the prescribed affidavit undertaking.