- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49107 WP No. 35556 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35556 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: DR. KARTHIK UDUP R.N., S/O DR N RAMESH UDUP AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ASHWINI DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE WARD NO-22, CHAMARAJANAGRA TOWN-571313 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN MUNICIPALITY CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST-571313 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE NO.N SA. CHA/TAM SH/ P. R/12/2025-26 DATED 31.10.2025, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT CHAMARAJANAGARA MUNICIPALITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49107 WP No. 35556 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.£À.¸À.ZÁ/vÁA.±Á/¦.Dgï/12/2025-26 dated 31.10.2025 issued by the respondent, directing the petitioner to demolish the additional floors constructed without obtaining sanctioned plan. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a property in Chamarajanagar Town. He claims that he had obtained a licence and approved plan for constructing ground plus 3 floors. He claims that he had constructed 4 floors while he had obtained sanctioned plan only for 2 floors and approached the respondent to issue a completion certificate. The respondent had levied penalty of twice the amount of property tax and had permitted the petitioner to construct additional floors and issued a completion certificate. (ii) The petitioner claims that from the year 2022 till date he has been paying the property tax and is running a nursing home. The petitioner claims that out of the blue, the respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to remove the extra construction put up unauthorisedly. The petitioner claims that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49107 WP No. 35556 of 2025 though he replied to the notice, the respondent is attempting to demolish the construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed to set aside the notice issued by the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that what is issued is only a notice and the petitioner is bound to reply to the said notice. He submits that the petitioner has not produced or enclosed any reply to the notice issued. He therefore submits that the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to file his reply and the respondent be directed to consider the reply and pass appropriate orders. 4. In view of the fact that what is challenged is a notice issued by the respondent, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner by quashing the notice. However, the petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity to reply to the notice issued by the respondent. The respondent may thereafter proceed in accordance with law. In order to expedite the process, the petitioner shall file his reply to the notice which is impugned in this writ petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and pass appropriate orders - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49107 WP No. 35556 of 2025 within a month thereafter. Until then, the respondent shall not take any precipitative action against the building constructed by the petitioner. 5. This writ petition is disposed off on the above terms. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent is permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37