Judgment:
(Prayer: These Petitions Are Filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, Praying To Call For The Records Relating "To, Concerning And Connected With The Impugned Stereo-Typed And Similarly Worded Orders Of Even Date 18,2.2014 Vide Annexures - E, El To E27 Respectively Issued By The 2nd Respondent, Peruse The Same And Declare And Quash The Said Orders As De/Oid Of The Authority Of Law, Etc.)
1. The petitioners claiming to be the purchasers of residential flats in the building called 'Bysani Skyway Apartment', constructed and sold by the 6th respondent, having been called upon by the 2nd respondent, by issue of individual notices dated 18.02.2013 vide Annexures-E, El to E27, to evacuate from and vacate the respective residential apartment and that on failure to do so within seven days, action in accordance with law would be taken, feeling aggrieved, filed these writ petitions to quash Annexures-E, El to E27.
2. A building plan was sanctioned and licence was issued by the B3MP, on 01.02,2005, in favour of the 6th respondent, for construction of the residential flats. The 6th respondent having entered into construction-cum-sale agreement/s with the petitioners, for sale of the residential flats, upon completion of the construction, executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The notices, as at Annexures - E, El to E27, having been served on the petitioners, these writ petitions were filed assailing the same.
3. Sri. H. subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri. K.C. Shanthakumar, learned advocate, contended that the direction issued in the impugned communications to the petitioners that they shall vacate and evacuate themselves from the residential flats of 'Bysani Skyway Apartments' is arbitrary and will have deleterious effect on the petitioners' right to life guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He contended that Annexures-F, F1 to E27 are laconic and cryptic and that the petitioners being purchasers of the flats, do not have any statutory obligation to seek or obtain 'occupancy certificate' from the 6BMP or its officers and the obligation is only on the developer or the builder of the apartments. He further contended that there being a mechanical act in the matter of issuance of Annexures-E, El to E27 by the 2nd respondent, interference is called for.
4, Perused the writ record. Except the address, the impugned communications are identical. It is appropriate to notice the contents of Annexure-E. The same reads as follows:
(œKANNADAM?)
5. By the impugned communications, the petitioners have been notified that the residential complex has been occupied without obtaining the occupancy certificate and in certain flats there is violation of the plan and licence and the petitioners were notified of the serious consequences and were instructed to vacate and evacuate themselves within seven days, failing which, action in accordance with law would be taken.
6. It is trite that, ordinarily, writ jurisdictioh cannot be invoked against the show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action and would not amount to an adverse order, which affects the rights of any party, unless, the same has been issued by a person having no competence. Writ remedy can be sought, when some right of the party is infringed. Annexures-E; El to E27, in my opinion being show-cause notices, do not infringe the rights of the petitioners. It is only after consideration of the defence of the petitioners and when final orders are passed adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners, they may have a grievance and a cause of action to seek relief before the competent forum. Thus, Annexures-E, El to E27 being only preliminary in nature and not final orders and since, the petitioners have the liberty to submit their respective replies to the 2nd respondent, at this stage, cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the power of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. No dispossession and demolition could take place without issuing show-cause notice and affording reasonable opportunity of heading to the petitioners. Annexures-E, El to E27 have been issued in that direction. The petitioners have been notified that in case of default on their part, action in accordance with law would be taken and thus, making Annexures-E, El to E27 only show-cause notices.
8. Even otherwise also, principles of natural justice demand that show-case notice and hearing should be provided before any person is dispossessed or any structure is demolished, of which he is in possession. The impugned communications, thus being show-cause notices, the petitioners have the liberty to file their respective replies. At this stage, these writ petitions being premature, cannot be entertained.
In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to file their respective replies, if any, before the 2nd respondent, on or before 07.03.2014 and the 2nd respondent is directed to grant to the petitioners or their authorized representative, reasonable opportunity of hearing and thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law.
All contentions raised in these writ petitions are kept open.