- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29270-DB WA No. 941 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CITY MANGALORE, LALBAGH, MANGALURU-575 003. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NITISH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K V NARASIMHAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE 24, TILAK MARG, BHAGWAN DAS LANE, MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI, DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT ARCHAEOLOGIST 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, 5TH FLOOR, F WING, KENDRIYA SADANA, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29270-DB WA No. 941 of 2025 3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR (KARNATAKA) GOVT. OF INDIAS NATIONAL MONUMENTS AUTHORITY, KSIMC BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 4. SRI. DENIS CRASTA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE ELIAS CRASTA, RESIDING AT JEPPINAMOGERU ROAD, THANDOLIGE, PADIL, MANGALURU-575 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI ALONG WITH SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., CGC FOR RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2 SRI. K.S. HARISH.G.A. FOR RESPONDENT No.3) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP No. 9010/2025, DATED 02.06.2025 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PARAGRAPH No. 15 (VI AND VII) OF THE SAID ORDER b) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFs AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29270-DB WA No. 941 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9010 of 2025 captioned "Sri Denis Crasta v. The Union of India & Others". 2. The respondent No.4 [Sri. Denis Crasta], had filed the said writ petition, inter alia impugning an order dated 28.01.2025, passed by the Competent Authority and the Regional Director, National Monuments Authority, Government of India, Bengaluru, declining to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' to respondent No.4 to carry on construction on the subject property which was within the prohibited/restricted zone of the nationally protected monument. 3. Respondent No.4 had obtained the licence to carry on construction, which the learned Single Judge found, could not have been issued. In the aforesaid context, the petition preferred by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29270-DB WA No. 941 of 2025 respondent No.4 was dismissed in terms of the impugned order. However, additionally the learned Single Judge had also issued certain directions including for conducting an enquiry against the erring officials. The dispositive part of the impugned order, is set out below. "ORDER (i) The Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 28.01.2025 issued by the Regional Director, National Monuments Authority stands upheld. (iii) The petitioner is restrained from proceeding with the construction which stands in breach of Section 20A and 20B of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. (iv) A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development for its compliance of issuance of a circular. (v) A circular shall be issued within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the same be placed before the Registry of this Court. (vi) Departmental enquiry against the erring officials be initiated and conducted strictly in consonance with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29270-DB WA No. 941 of 2025 principles of natural justice after identifying those officers who has / have granted permission to put up a new construction contrary to the Statute. (vii) Action taken report on the said departmental enquiry shall also be placed before the Registry of this Court within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order." 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting the impugned order on merits. However, he is aggrieved by direction Nos.(vi) and (vii) of the learned Single Judge. In terms of the said directions, the appellant has been directed to conduct a departmental enquiry against the erring officials and also place a report before the Registry of this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel submits that the residential layout had been sanctioned earlier, and since the application had been made online, the officials had issued the licence in a bona fide belief that the construction was permissible under the Zonal Regulations. He also states that respondent No.4 has also filed a Writ Appeal being W.A.No.1083/2025, against the impugned order, which is pending - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29270-DB WA No. 941 of 2025 consideration. He contends that if respondent No.4 succeeds in his appeal, then the directions as issued would not survive. 6. Clearly, if it is found that no license to construct could be issued, then it would be apposite for the appellant to conduct a preliminary enquiry so as to ascertain whether the action of the officials was bonafide or not. If it is found that the conduct of the officials is not above board or otherwise warranting disciplinary enquiry, the appellant would necessarily have to initiate steps in that regard. The direction to conduct an enquiry – direction No. (vi) – is modified to the said extent. 7. We also find merit in the contention that since the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 against the impugned order is pending consideration, it is not necessary for the appellant to institute an enquiry, at this stage. 8. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to suspend the directions to hold an enquiry against the erring officials, till a final decision is taken in the Writ Appeal filed by respondent No.4 (W.A.No.1083 of 2025). Needless to state that the operation of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29270-DB WA No. 941 of 2025 said directions, would be subject to any order that may be passed in the said writ appeal. 9. The present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30