The petitioner has challenged a show cause notice

dated 14.03.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 under

Section 187(9)(a) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act,

1964 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act of 1964’).

The petitioner - Firm claims to be the owner of

the property bearing Sy. No.261/1P15 measuring 68.50

cents situate at Herga village, Udupi Taluk. The petitioner

obtained

permission

from

the

Urban

Development

Authority, Udupi, for forming a layout on 16.06.2010 and

3

obtained building licence from respondent No.2 - Udupi

City Municipal Council on 10.06.2011 to construct a multi-

storeyed building comprising of basement, ground and

upper three floors. The petitioner claims that it sold the

flats to different purchasers. In order to protect the

building from corrosion, a temporary structure was put

up on terrace for which no licence was required from the

respondents. The petitioner alleged that the respondent

No.2 issued a notice on 14.03.2016 stating that based on

the report of the Assistant Engineer dated 11.03.2016, it

was

noticed

that

the

partners

of

the

Firm

had

unauthorizedly put up an additional floor beyond the

sanctioned plan and were called upon to remove the

unauthorized structure and report compliance within one

week from thereon, failing which it was stated that action

would be taken for removal of additional construction in

accordance with Section 187(d) of the Act of 1964. The

petitioner claims that no one had ever visited the property

let alone the Assistant Engineer either on 11.03.2016 or

any other date and therefore the said notice was issued

4

blindly by the respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted

its reply on 22.03.2016 claiming regularization of the

temporary structure put up on the top floor of the building.

Despite the reply, the respondent No.2 did not take any

action to either consider the request of the petitioner or to

conduct

further

proceedings.

Hence,

the

petitioner

challenged the notice dated 14.03.2016 on the ground that

there was no violation of the building plan or the building

bye-laws and that the same was issued without physical

inspection of the property.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2

submits that the building in question was inspected by the

Assistant Junior Engineer on 11.03.2016, where it was

found that the petitioner had unauthorizedly constructed

an additional floor in the building and therefore, it was on

that basis that the impugned notice was issued.

4.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2

submitted that the very contention of the petitioner that it

is willing to seek regularization of the unauthorized

5

construction on the top floor of the building discloses that

the report of the Assistant Engineer was proper and

correct. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned

notice cannot be set at naught.

5.

The petitioner has challenged a show cause

notice dated 14.03.2016, issued by the respondent No.2 in

the ordinary course of exercise of his power under Section

187 of the Act of 1964. The petitioner does admit that it

had constructed an additional floor on the top floor of the

building and that it was prepared to get it regularized as

provided under law. The petitioner claims that such

construction on the top floor of the building was temporary

and no permission was required. This very fact as rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2

goes to demonstrate that the petitioner had constructed an

additional floor beyond what was permitted under the

sanctioned plan. Therefore, the question whether the

construction so put up by the petitioner required a plan or

a sanction by the competent authority had to be

determined. This was within the exclusive domain of the

6

respondent No.2 which after inspecting the property could

have made an assessment as to whether the construction

put up by the petitioner was temporary or permanent.

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is

disposed off upholding the notice dated 14.03.2016 iss