- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1183 WP No. 2529 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 2529 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: P.T.MATHEW S/O P.T.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT KAYARTHADKA HOUSE, KELANJA VILLAGE, KAYARTHADKA POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH.P.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN.B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD DEPARTMENT, SUB-DIVISION, BELTHANGADY, D.K.DISTRICT-574 217. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1183 WP No. 2529 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.Sharath.P.H., counsel on behalf of Sri.Sachin.B.S., for the petitioner and Sri.Manjunatha Rayappa., AGA for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Notice dated 20.01.2021 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-A. 3. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that Annexure-A is not a notice, but an order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. He argued by saying that the Officer concerned has no power to pass such an order. He also submitted that Lokayukta has no power in the matter. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. By way of reply, AGA submits that Annexure-A is only a notice. He submits that a direction may be issued to the petitioner to submit suitable reply to the same. AGA therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1183 WP No. 2529 of 2021 5. A perusal of the writ papers reflects that a notice has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is at a liberty to submit a suitable reply to the same without prejudice to all his contentions. Upon submission of such reply, the respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with the law. Till the consideration of the reply that would be filed by the petitioner, the respondent is directed not to precipitate the matter for taking action against the petitioner for eviction. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56