VIRUPAKSHAPPA Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11-7-1977 of the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Dn., Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the 'DC.') in Revision Petition No. MUM. Br.A. 18 (EEx. 'H').

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of Bagalkot City at which place there is a City Municipality constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On or about 23-6-1976, respondent No. 4 applied to the Chief Officer of the Municipality for a license under S. 256 of the Act for running a calcite factory in that City, which was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds. On a consideration of the contentions urged by the parties in support of their respective cases, the Chief Officer, by his order No. PHD. WP.PMM/639/74-75 dated 10-12-1976 Ex. 'J') overruled the objections filed by the petitioner and directed the issue of a license to respondent No. 4 on the terms and conditions set out therein. In pursuance of the said order, on the same day, the Chief Officer, also issued a license to respondent No. 4 (Ex. 'E'). Against the order dated 10-12 -1976 and the license issued by the Chief Officer, the petitioner filed a revision petition under S. 322 of the Act before the D.C. before whom respondent No. 4 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the said revision petition. Accepting the said preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 4, the D.C., holding that the order challenged was appealable before the City Municipal Council and therefore the Revision Petition was not maintainable before him, has directed its return to the petitioner. The discussion of the D.C. ard the nature of the order made by Km is contained in para 4 of his order which reads thus :-

(3.) Sri I.S. Antin, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that notwithstanding the remedy of an appeal provided by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ('Rules') and the failure to avail that remedy, it was open to the petitioner to move the Divisional Commissioner in a revision petition under S. 322 of the Act and the same was maintainable before him.