K.S.JAYARAMA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegal construction raised by respondent No.4 - Mr.S.K. Madapaa and seeking to stop the construction in pursuance of notices dated 02.03.2017 and 09.03.2017 vide Annexures-D and E, the present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the said respondent No.4 is an Ex-Officer of the respondent Authorities - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to the 'BBMP') and therefore, out of bias the respondent - Authorities may not take any further action in accordance with law against the said person. He has also submitted before the Court that the said respondent has filed an appeal before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal against the proceedings taken by the respondent - BBMP. However, his impleadment application has not been entertained by the Tribunal.

(3.) This Court while dealing with similar situation in the case of Sri. V. Dhamodaran and Others Vs. The Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru, vide order dated 28th day of November, 2016 in Writ Petition Nos.3881-3883/2014 (LB-BMP) has categorically held that in such situation, writ jurisdiction is misconceived remedy to be availed by the complainant and that they should approach the Civil Court in a Civil Suit under the provisions of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The relevant portion of the above judgment deserves to be quoted below for ready reference :-