- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 8841 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. JOHN RODRIGUES AGED 72 YEARS S/O LATE SALVARODRE RODRIGUES R/AT 'EMJON', OPP. ROSHNI NILAYA KANKANADY, MANGALURU - 575 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION LALBAGH, MANGALURU - 575 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25-09-2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K. MANGALURU IN M.A NO.6/2024 IN SO FAR AS REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO RESPONDENT FOR FRESH ENQUIRY IN PROCEEDING NO. E8/CR25/23-24, AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 321(1) AND (2) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A; ETC. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. A neighbour of the petitioner appears to have lodged a complaint to the respondent about the construction put up by the petitioner on his property. The respondent has initiated action against the petitioner and passed orders under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in M.A.No.6/2024. The trial Court came to the conclusion that a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner to defend his case and hence, the matter was remanded to the respondent with a direction to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said order reads as under:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026 "::ORDER:: The appeal filed under Section 443-A of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the respondent/Commissioner under Section 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act and final order dated 03.08.2024 in E8/CR 25/23-24 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent with a direction to hold fresh inquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant to show cause as provided under Section 321(1) and (2) of The KMC Act. Office is directed to send back the records to the concerned office forthwith along with the copy of the order for further action in the matter." 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the trial Court ought to have allowed the appeal in full and was required to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent and should not have remanded the matter back to the respondent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026 4. The reasoning given by the trial Court for passing the impugned order are as follows:- "9. The argument of the appellant is that after filing of the present appeal, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 02.03.2024 on I.A.No.I by staying the impugned order challenged in the appeal. The order sheet further reflects thereafter as per order dated 02.05.2024, the interim order was extended till further orders and it is still operating against the respondent. The respondent after appearance has not made any efforts seeking for vacating the interim order. 10. The appellant has filed a memo and produced copy of the order dated 03.08.2024 in E8/CR25/23-24. As per the said order the learned Commissioner has passed final order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act by confirming the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 challenged in the present appeal. It is pertinent to note that as on the date of passing of the above referred final order dated 03.08.2024, the interim stay order passed by this court was in operation. The respondent has also issued another notice to the appellant dated 04.09.2024 in E8/CR.45(a)/2023-24/PLO:167002 intimating him that the Corporation is going to demolish the building in accordance with law. 11. As per Section 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act, if the Commissioner is satisfied that any building has been constructed without obtaining permission or - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026 construction has been carried out otherwise than in accordance with the plan or completed in breach of provisions of the KMC Act or any rule or bye-law, he may make provisional order requiring the owner of the building to demolish the work done or make such alteration in conformity with the Act, rules, bye-laws. The Commissioner shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub section (1) of Section 321 on the owner or builder of the building together with a notice requiring him to show cause within reasonable time why the order should not be made absolute. 12. In the case on hand, after service of provisional order passed under Section 321(1) and show cause notice under Section 321(2) of the KMC Act, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Hence the respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to produce copy of the building license, approved plan to the show cause notice issued under Section 321(2) of the provisional order. However, the respondent in violation of principles of natural justice has passed the final order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act when the stay of the impugned order passed by this court was in operation. 13. The appellant after coming to know about passing of the final order under Section 321(3) and on receipt of notice dated 04.09.2024, has issued notice to the Commissioner through his advocate dated 12.09.2024. The copy of the said notice is also placed on record. In view of the above back ground facts and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026 unforeseen developments, the order passed by the respondent dated 03.08.2024 in E8/CR25/23-24 is contrary to law and unsustainable. Therefore, the appellant has made out sufficient grounds for making interference in the impugned order challenged in this appeal. The matter required to be remanded with a direction to the respondent to hear the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and this Court proceed to pass the following: :: ORDER:: The appeal filed under Section 443-A of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the respondent /Commissioner under Section 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act and final order dated 03.08.2024 in E8/CR 25/23-24 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent with a direction to hold fresh inquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant to show cause as provided under Section 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act. Office is directed to send back the records to the concerned office forthwith along with the copy of the order for further action in the matter." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026 5. Thus, the trial Court upon verifying the records has come to the conclusion that the respondent has passed an adverse order against the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice and that too when an interim order passed by the Court was in operation. It has also come to the conclusion that a proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner to enable him to produce the necessary licenses to justify his construction. Hence, the trial Court has set aside the order passed by the respondent and remanded the matter back to the respondent to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. I do not see any error in the same. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3