P4 T”’ flT ?): T”i A’ 3 irL,n: Dated this the 8th 1 v of Turt, ira Ba t r .. : : ‘ 3L N). 3 3 I ). ‘. Z ‘3 ‘fritP’titIon o,12’57 of 137 The ssocItirn of Consula’ 4 ’i; flvil a..njtr.e’ra, a re tsta.rcd Ztt.tj hay-in, as f’1 at Ib4o.172, 4 0t1eB Main aoa, T Block, Saynapr, Ban;ilnrcaeti re?rsq”te 4 by its Seceetirv Dr. . crikash, r/o 2-mi ior .,Oa-it4 ir (ey Sri ‘. Jois, 4 voctej e 1. t Stat, cf rndt’kR rarnjentad cy its Secretary, :4,.cln; i1 trb’n ‘)evnm nt De’srtnent, !tcTh in u’Tha, 3ani- 1’ or .47 ti’ 3 nr itirn or ti’a fl*y- of Ban;1orc, Do p’rt’ r Offices, Bi’, 1 or, r’-. sa.t )v _t C9 Lit n’ :r’oo n. (3 $ri .,.‘a 1ithr, .a., •) P27 Ii. se’vad I t aj,, iA p 4 7 ca t r’x-r 4 s rn’c,t ri ‘. O o i 1irv bye—’ ws ‘f ‘8’ app’-vv —r : c flfl• : “r •i)a y it ..irq.t eR •, fle° l i% ‘t. -< ra ‘1i3”s 7.32 0 ti 5aja t7 t ‘-‘ • 4e ce—’i as i”b 4 tr r: ri 4 ane3tit13 :. mi - t )t tini ,‘d’ ‘x’ ‘w-i_ nar.w !ieaetn; in’ ‘ ‘roa ch ‘ ri’ 0 a “ rt “as ol! ‘‘ . . . S ORDER The ptitioner, whIch is an association of consulting n;ineers and practisin’g civil Engineers, has challenged clause 3,2 of Bye—law IV of the Building Bye—laws 1983 of second respondent Caproved by the first respondent under Zection 428 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations kct, l976, The said Bye law restricts the competence of Civil En;ineers to submit plans and related information in regard to the buildings of plinth area upto 200 3q,M, and fur storeys. In other words, the Registered Civil Engineers will not be entitled to submit rians and. related information in regard to any building f a pllnth area of rnorp than 200 Sa,’4, or four storeys, They have also souht a direction to the corporation nt to enforce the said tOVSiOfl 2. Though the petition was flied on 10—8—19B, and the p-titiorer soughtinterim ordr in regard to operation and implementation of the said clause no interim ocder was granted by this Court, Thus it is not in Uspute that the aaid Bye—law is in force continuously for several years rli now, 3, When the matter came up to—day, learned counsel for the corporation stated that the Bangalore City Dorooration is framing new Building Bye-laws 1 —3— that t has already framed new draft building byelaws as per the revised onal Regulations and Comprehensive Development Plan 0 approved by the State Jovernment, and it will call for objections from the public 0 before finalising the Bye—laws and getting them aproved by the State Sovernment, He stated that if the draft byelaws (revised byelaws) contain any sImilar rovision, it is open to the petitioner to file objections and such objections will be considered by the Corporation before taking a final decision in rcgard to the new bye laws, He therefore stated that it is unnecessary to consider the validity of clause 3.2 of Bye—law IV at this belated stage 0 when such Bye—laws are about to be replaced, in view of the above Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition may be disposed of 0 recoJing the said suhmision and leaving ooen all questions.J 4. Hence, leaving open all contentions, and resetving librty to th etittn and othe 9 agjreve1 ares to file obecti n to tha draft Sye—lai this petition is dispced of, c Pik/uJ(