- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35689 WP No. 25437 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.25437 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KANTILAL JAIN S/O PRATAPMAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, CHRISTIAN COLONY, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY MUNICIPAL COUCIL CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING CMC/CKM/COM.SHA/CR/2/2024-25 DATED 11.07.2025 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-T TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35689 WP No. 25437 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing ID No.15-1-503-92 and assessment No.56/4837/3245 situated at ward No.15, Agasar beedi, Chikkamagaluru City and has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 11.07.2025 at Annexure-T, which is said to have been passed by the respondent in exercise of the power under Section 187(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (8the Act, 19649 for brevity). The said order has been assailed on various grounds. However, the enquiry into the legality of the said order would require consideration of disputed question of facts which are best left to be considered before the alternative forum for legal redressal provided under the Act, 1964. 2. Section 322 of the Act, 1964 provides for a revisional remedy before the Director of Municipal Administration. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35689 WP No. 25437 of 2025 3. In light of the nature of contentions raised, the petitioner is at liberty to avail himself of the alternate remedy under Section 322 of the Act, 1964 as regards his grievance against the order at Annexure-T. 4. The petitioner is granted four weeks9 time to initiate necessary proceedings, if so advised, under Section 322 of the Act, 1964 as against the order at Annexure-T as per law. 5. The order at Annexure-T would not be given effect for a period of four weeks. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of subject to the above observation. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66