IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION NOS.11291 & 12542 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.

Sydney John Lewis

S/o late Lawrence B Lewis

Aged about 54 years.

2.

Mrs.Jerina Nirmala Lewis

W/o Sydney John lewis

Aged about 49 years

Both are r/at Post Box No.52190

Dubai, U.A.E.

Petitioners are represented by

their GPA holder Sri.Sathish.B

S/o late B.Vittala Tantri

Aged 54 years

R/at “Kodimar House”

Belman Village, Karkala Taluk

Udupi District – 576101.

...PETITIONERS

(By Sri.Manmohan P.N., Advocate)

AND:

1.

The State of Karnataka

Department of Urban Development

M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560001

Represented by its Secretary.

2

2.

The Udupi City Municipal Council

K.M.Marg, Udupi – 576101

Udupi District

Represented by its Commissioner. …RESPONDENTS

(By Smt.Prathima Honnapura., AGA for R1,

Sri.T.I.Abdulla., Advocate for R2)

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order

dated 31.08.2017 passed by the R-2 (produced as Annexure-

L) and etc.

These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day,

the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present Writ

Petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated

31.08.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent as per

Annexure-L withdrawing the occupancy certificate

granted in favour of the 1^st petitioner unilaterally

without giving an opportunity of being heard.

2.

It is the case of the petitioners that the

petitioners

have

purchased

the

land

bearing

Sy.No.66/1P220-1B8, measuring 21 cents situated at

3

Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk and District. After

obtaining

building

license

and

commencement

certificate,

the

petitioners

proceeded

to

put

up

construction.

Thereafter,

2^nd

respondent

after

inspecting the building, issued the occupancy certificate

dated 12.08.2015 in favour of the 1^st petitioner.

Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 31.08.2017,

the 2^nd respondent withdrawn the occupancy certificate

issued to the 1^st petitioner without any notice and an

opportunity of being heard and said order was not

communicated to the petitioners. Therefore, the

petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the

parties to the lis and perused the impugned order.

4.

Sri.Manmohan, learned counsel for the

petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the Writ

Petition has contended that the impugned order passed

4

by the 2^nd respondent withdrawing the occupancy

certificate granted earlier without notice and hearing the

petitioners is utter violation of principles of natural

justice and liable to be quashed.

5.

Sri.T.I.Abdulla,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent No.2 contended that the very Writ Petition

filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as against

the impugned order, the petitioners have an alternative

remedy of an appeal under the provisions of Section

343(2)

of

Karnataka

Municipalities

Act,

1964.

Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6.

The learned Additional Government Advocate

also submits that the petitioners have the alternative

remedy and seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the

owner of property in question and obtained licence from

5

the 2^nd respondent on 22.11.2011. 2^nd respondent after

satisfying himself has issued the occupancy certificate

in favour of the 1^st petitioner on 12.08.2015. After lapse

of two years, 2^nd respondent passed by the impugned

order unilaterally withdrawing the occupancy certificate

without notice and an opportunity of being heard the

petitioners.