I IN THE HIGH COURT OF CARNATA T 3NGALRE Dated this the 8th ddy f Tune, 1998 Before: THE HON’3LE MR. TUiCE R.V. RAVENDRAN Writ Petition No, 9567 of 1993 G.M. Associates, rep, by its Partner, Sri Galam Mohammed, No. 576, 977, & 578, Badara Krishnapoa Roa, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore , ,Petitioner (By Sri 0. Shivararn Bhat, Zdvocate) —vs— 1, State o Karnataka, rep. by its Secr tary to the Housing & Urban Development uthortty, M.S, Building, Bangalo’-e—560 001; 2, Mysore Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Commissioner, Mysore .Respondents (By Sri, Nagarajapoc, Gk, for Ri; Sr P.S,Manjunath & H,C,Shivaramu, Adv,, for R2) WrIt Ptition is i1 oaying to quash the order/ Notice dated 20-3—93 passed by the Commr,, of Mycor Urban Development Authority in No.My,Na.Pre.Nayo:721— 92—93 vide Armexure—A. This writ petition coming on for oreliminary hearing in B Group this day, the Court made the following: — . . . 2 S 1 -3 - respondent issued the impugned order dated 20-3—1993 ‘Annexure ‘A’ directing the petitioner to demolish the deviations/offending portions of the building within a period of seven days.. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition and sought quashing of Annexure ‘A’ dated 20-3—1993 2. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds, it is not necessary to examine them, in view of the subsequent development referred to by the petitioner’s counsel. According to him, the State Government has issued a circular dated 14-6-1996 regarding compounding of deviations and violations of sanction plans; and he submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to request the second respondent for regularisation/ compounding of deviations as per said circular. 3. Learned counsel for the second respondent stated that the circular may not be applicable to the petitioner’s case, as the circular wa issued long after the action againbt the petitioner. Be that as it may. At this stage all that is requested is permission to file an application for I 1 -4- compounding/ regularisation in pursuance of said circulate The second respondent may consider such application in the light of Annexure ‘A’ and the Government Circular if found to be applicable. 4. Hence, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an application before the second respondent, within one month, seeking regularisation/compounding. Liberty is also reserved to petitioner to file objections to Annexure ‘A’ setting forth the grounds of objections, in addition to making a request for compounding. The second respondent may consider the same and dispose of such application and objections in accordance with law. All contentions of both parties left open. • ‘. Sd/ -‘ 1, JUDGE 11 J *pjk ‘is:’