A writ petition challenging local authority actions is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies are available, especially if a related appeal is pending.

JUDGMENT :

K.V.ARAVIND, J.

Heard Sri Paras Jain, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri B. S. Satyanand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and Sri P. D. Surana, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. The appellants are the owners of the immovable property bearing No. 8/1, II Cross, Swasti Road (Lakshmi Road Cross), Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. Respondent No.4 is the owner of the adjacent property bearing No.8/2. The appellants commenced construction of a building after obtaining sanction of the building plan from respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 submitted a representation alleging that the appellants had violated the sanctioned plan. When respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to take action, W.P. No.4972/2012 was filed before this Court seeking a direction to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, [BBMP] to initiate action for removal of the alleged illegal construction. The violation alleged pertained to the construction of additional floors beyond the sanctioned plan. This Court, while disposing of W.P. No.4972/2012, directed the BBMP to initiate action for removal of the unauthorized construction. In compliance, the BBMP issued a notice under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, KMC Act, calling upon the appellants to remove the illegal construction. Thereafter, a final order of demolition came to be passed.

2.1 The appellants preferred Appeal No.1344/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). As the appellants continued the construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.3876/2013 before this Court seeking directions to the BBMP to take appropriate action. This Court directed the KAT to dispose of the pending appeal within a period of two months. The KAT, by its order dated 04.03.2014, set aside the order confirming demolition and remitted the matter to the BBMP for fresh consideration. After remand, a notice under Section 321 (1) of the KMC Act, was issued, and an order of demolition dated 21.02.2014 came to be passed.

2.2 The said orders were challenged by the appellants before the KAT in Appeal No.285/2014, wherein an order of status quo was granted. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.29795/2014 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, during the pendency of the writ petition, issued a series of directions, including a direction for inspection and submission of a report regarding the alleged violations.

2.3 Upon consideration of the reports submitted by the BBMP, the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the violation of the sanctioned plan by the appellants stood established. The learned Single Judge also took note of the pendency of Appeal No.285/2014 before the KAT. It was further held that the appellants had deviated from the sanctioned plan by failing to leave the required setbacks and by constructing the third and fourth floors without sanction. Under the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan within one month and to report compliance to respondent Nos.1 to 3, who were directed to verify whether the construction was brought in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The learned Single Judge further directed the BBMP to demolish the building in the event the deviations were not rectified. While issuing the aforesaid directions, the learned Single Judge also took note of the order of status quo passed by the KAT, which was in operation.

3. Sri Paras Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that respondent No.4 had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition before this Court, in which the impugned dir