SHUBHAKAR BALLAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the provisional order passed under Sub-Sec. (1) of S.321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dt. 6-8-1981 bearing No. E2/10628/81-, by the 3rd respondent, produced as Anne.-A; calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the provisional order should not be confirmed and an action to demolish the building in question should not be taken at the cost and risk of the petitioners. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in S.321 of the Act, are unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the body of the petition as well as in the prayer, it is stated that the aforesaid Section is also violative of Art. 15 of the Constitution. That Article is not in any way relevant at all; therefore learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer may be treated as the one relating to Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that S.321 of the Act, gives unguided and uncontrolled powers to the Commissioner; therefore, it leads to arbitrary exercise of power; hence it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(2.) On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Mangalore, by Shri B.P. Holla, and Sri Somayaji, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, proceeds on the basis of incorrect reading of the provisions contained in S.321 of the Act, because the Section itself contains sufficient guidelines for the purpose of exercise of power under the Act; therefore the contention is devoid of merit. It is further submitted that in addition to this, the Act also provides for an appeal against the final order passed under Sub-Sec. (3) of S.321 of the Act, to the Standing Committee as provided by S.444 of the Act, therefore the Section does not suffer from any vice and it is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) Having regard to the aforesaid contentions, the point for consideration is whether S.321 of the Act, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.