G. CHANDRAKANT Vs. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKA CORPORATION OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claiming to be the purchasers of residential flats in the building called 'Bysani Skyway Apartment', constructed and sold by the 6th respondent, having been called upon by the 2nd respondent, by issue of individual notices dated 18.02.2013 vide Annexures-E, E1 to E27, to evacuate from and vacate the respective residential apartment and that on failure to do so within seven days, action in accordance with law would be taken, feeling aggrieved, filed these writ petitions to quash Annexures-E, E1 to E27.

(2.) A building plan was sanctioned and licence was issued by the BBMP, on 01.02.2005, in favour of the 6th respondent, for construction of the residential flats. The 6th respondent having entered into construction-cum-sale agreement/s with the petitioners, for sale of the residential flats, upon completion of the construction, executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The notices, as at Annexures - E, E1 to E27, having been served on the petitioners, these writ petitions were filed assailing the same.

(3.) Sri. H. subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri. K.C. Shanthakumar, learned advocate, contended that the direction issued in the impugned communications to the petitioners that they shall vacate and evacuate themselves from the residential flats of 'Bysani Skyway Apartments' is arbitrary and will have deleterious effect on the petitioners' right to life guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He contended that Annexures-E, E1 to E27 are laconic and cryptic and that the petitioners being purchasers of the flats, do not have any statutory obligation to seek or obtain 'occupancy certificate' from the BBMP or its officers and the obligation is only on the developer or the builder of the apartments. He further contended that there being a mechanical act in the matter of issuance of Annexures-E, E1 to E27 by the 2nd respondent, interference is called for.