Section 321(3) confirmation is invalid without a prior provisional order under Section 321(1).

The petitioners challenged the order dated 2 July 2018 by which the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, dismissed M.A. No. 59 of 2017 concerning action taken by the Corporation under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (“the Act”).

They contended that the Corporation had issued a show-cause notice and a final order under Section 321(3), but had neither passed nor served the provisional order required by Section 321(1).

The Corporation produced no document establishing that such a provisional order had been passed and served.

1. Whether, in the absence of a provisional order under Section 321(1) of the Act, a final or confirmation order may be passed under Section 321(3) merely on the basis of a show-cause notice.

Section 321(1) of the Act authorises the Commissioner, on being satisfied of specified unlawful construction or work, to make a provisional order requiring demolition or alteration.

Under Section 321(2), a copy of that provisional order must be served on the owner or builder together with a notice requiring them to show cause why the order should not be confirmed.

Section 321(3) permits confirmation, with any modification considered appropriate, if the owner or builder fails to show cause to the Commissioner’s satisfaction.

The Court held that the provisional-order requirement is mandatory and that an order under Section 321(3) cannot be made without it.

No precedent was cited.

The statutory sequence requires a provisional order under Section 321(1), service of that order with a show-cause notice under Section 321(2), and only then possible confirmation under Section 321(3).

The Corporation did not produce evidence that it had passed or served the required provisional order, and it did not deny the petitioners’ contention that no such order had been issued.

The Court therefore held that the confirmation order could not stand; the appellate authority had failed to address this defect.

It allowed the writ petition, quashed the appellate order dated 2 July 2018, and consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the order challenged before the appellate authority.

The Corporation remains at liberty to take appropriate action for any building-law or plan violation, provided it complies with Section 321 of the Act.

No order as to costs was made.