IN THE lUG: COURT OF KARITATUA Al’ BANGALORE Dated thi s the 18th day of June 1998 BEFORE T1 HON9IE MR. JUSfiCE CANDRAiARAIi BETWEEN Sri. Sripal AflflaPPa Patil, Major, 0cc: Busirssrnan& Agricuituri st, R/o. at 182, T3asti Ga12i BaSavankUdachi, Belgaurn. .. PTITION (By Sri. Veena I. Afltifl, Adv.) AND The Commission, The Corporation of the City of 1gaum, Belgaurn. (By Sri, RaVi B, Naik, AdV,) This petition is filed uier tic1es 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Iria with a rrayer to quash the order vide AnrmreE dt,16.9,97 This petition coming on for pri. ‘g, In B’ Group this day, the Court made the fo1iog:- 2 • * • a - On the ppl1cation made by the petitioner the Corporation has granted licence and approved the Plan for construction of building in Belg 5 urn City, It appears on the complaint of i, KeA. Makarrlar and Snit, K&Jubai, the Corwissioner hag suspended the licence in exercise of power under Sec.443(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corpcratiorisct, The learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that since the petitioner has obtained the licence by mis representation or fraud, the Commissioner was right in suspendir the licence in exercise of the power referred to aIV€. From the r eadi1 of Annecare-E, I do mt firxl ttt there is aflY mis—representation or fraud by the petitioner in order to obtain the licence in his favour, Therefore, the Commissioner was not right in suspending the licence. If the petitioner ptrt)up the construction contrary to the 5 pproved plan or (6$ the buIlding by-laws, it Is open for the Comrissioner to take appropriate action under Sec.321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corportioncct. In the said view of ‘a 3 :3: of the matter, there is ix, reason to suspend the licence on the ground that the construction is either contrary to the approved pl 5 n or to the building by-laws. 2. In the result I Pass the following xder: This Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the Conriissionsr dt.16.9.1997 produced s Anxxire-E is quashed. However, this order L will rxt Commissioner to t&ce 5 pproprite action under Sec,321 of the Act, if he is of the opinion that the construction is contrary to the approved P’a or iilding by—l 5 ws. - i 11