APOLLO PAINTS AND PEARL COATINGS & CHEMICALS Vs. SECRETARY/PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KIADB allotted the plot No. 46B, Industrial Area, Dabaspet, in favour of the 2nd petitioner. It has constructed the building by obtaining plan and licence, as required in the allotment conditions. It has leased the building constructed in favour of the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent having issued an intimation dated 03.06.2013, vide Annexure -E and a reply having been submitted on 14.06.2013, vide Annexure -F, these writ petitions were filed on 16.11.2013, to quash the said intimation of the 1st respondent and for grant of consequential reliefs.

(2.) SRI Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned advocate contended that to the impugned intimation, a reply having been submitted, there is threat of forcible action by the respondents by taking law into their own hands and the industrial area having not been handed over to the 1st respondent, which is not providing any services, the impugned communication being only arm twisting tactics, interference is warranted.

(3.) I am concerned in this case with the entertainment of the writ petitions against the notice/intimation issued by the 1st respondent. Annexure - E, ex -facie, cannot be said to be a 'nullity' or totally 'without jurisdiction' in the traditional sense. Petitioners have sent the reply, vide Annexure -F to Annexure -E. For entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, against an intimation like Annexure -E, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question. Such a situation is not shown to exist.