JUDGMENT Majula Chellur, J. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein received final notice contemplated under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (for short ‘the Act’), regarding the alleged unauthorised construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and bye-laws. The said notice is dated 11.12.2002. It is also not in dispute that challenging the notice under Section 321 (3) of the Act, the appellant approached the Standing Committee under Section 444 in appeal on 3.1.2003. On the very same day, the Standing Committee of the Corporation stayed the operation of the order issued under Section 321(3). Nothing seems to have occured till 20.8.2003. On the said dated, the gazette notification came to be published by introducing or inserting Section 443-A which reads as under: “Appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or District Court.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any notice issued, action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under Sections 308, 309 and 321 (3) may appeal.- (i) to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in case of the corporation of the city of Bangalore; (ii) to the District Court having jurisdiction in case of other corporations. (2) The decision of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or as the case may be the District Court shall be final. (3) All appeals made against any notice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under Sections 308, 309 and 321 (3) and pending before the standing committee on the date of commencement of this section shall stand transferred to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, or as the case may be, District Court and such appeals shall be disposed off by them as if they were filed before them.” It is also not disputed that Section 443-A was intended to come into effect from 19.11.2001 (retrospective date). With these admitted facts, we have to now consider the case of the appellante before us. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 443A of the Act, all matters pending before the Standing Committee pertaining to Sections 308, 309 and 321 (3) of the Act would be transferred to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and it is the KAT which would get jurisdiction over such matters provided under those provisions of law to dispose of the same. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent-authority, the interim order dt. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent-authority, the interim order dt. 3.1.03 was prior to introduction of Section 443-A. Under Section 98 of the Act, the Government had the power to take a decision on reference by the Corporation. 4. With these arguments, we proceed to look into the facts of the present case. 5. Section 98 of the Act is also a relevant provision to be referred to, as under this provision all resolutions and orders of the Corporation came to be reviewed or finally decided by the Government. Section 98 of the Act, reads as under: “Submission of copies of resolution to Government and Government’s power to cancel resolution and orders.- (1) The Commissioner shall submit to the Government copies of all resolutions of the Corporation. (2) If the Government is of opinion that the execution of any resolution or order of the Corporation or of any other authority or officer subordinate thereto or the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of the Corporation is in contravention of or in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or of any other law for the time being in force or is likely to lead to a breach of the peace or to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to any class or body of persons or is prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation it may by order in writing, suspend the execution of such resolution or order, or prohibit the doing of any such act after issuing a notice to the Corporation to show cause within a date to be specified which shall not be less than fifteen days why.- (a) the resolution or order may not be cancelled in whole or in part, or (b) any bye-law or regulation concerned may not be repealed in whole or in part. (3) Upon consideration of the reply, if any received from the Corporation and after such enquiry as it thinks fit, Government may pass orders cancelling the resolution or order or repealing the bye-law or regulation and communicate the same to the Corporation. (3) Upon consideration of the reply, if any received from the Corporation and after such enquiry as it thinks fit, Government may pass orders cancelling the resolution or order or repealing the bye-law or regulation and communicate the same to the Corporation. (4) Government may at any time, on further representation by the Corporation or otherwise, revise, modify or revoke an order passed under sub-section (3).” By comparing Section 98 with that of Section 443-A of the Act, it is crystal clear that Section 98 is a general provision wherein Government could exercise its powers as contemplated under Section 98 of the Act. With the introduction of Section 443-A, all the matters falling under Sections 308, 309 and 321 (3) are taken out from the purview of the powers to be exercised by the Government under Section 98 of the Act as Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was constituted specifically as Appellate Authority for those matters. In other words, whatever orders come under the above three Sections, would have to be dealt with by the appellate authority. So far as other provisions of the Act are concerned, if any decision has to be taken by the Standing Committee, the matters have to be decided in accordance with the other provisions of the Act having regard to Sections 98, 444 and 443-A. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents authority refers to Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2004 Kar 3996 in the case of SMT. RAMAKKA AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, by its Commissioner, Bangalore and Others wherein their Lordships of the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with Sections 98, 321 and 444 of the Act. This appeal came to be disposed of on 28.7.2004. By this time, Section 443-A was already inserted so far as appellate authority powers i.e., KAT regarding the matters arising out of orders or resolutions under Sections 308, 309, 321(3). Their Lordships had no occasion to consider the matter before them with reference to Section 443-A. Therefore, virtually 443-A was not pressed into service either by appellants or the authority before the Division Bench in the earlier matter. Hence, according to us, said decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. Their Lordships had no occasion to consider the matter before them with reference to Section 443-A. Therefore, virtually 443-A was not pressed into service either by appellants or the authority before the Division Bench in the earlier matter. Hence, according to us, said decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. Section 98 (1) referes to a mandate on the Commissioner of Corporation to send or submit copies of resolution of the Corporation to the Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 98 enumerates different situations in which Government can interfere, cancel resolution or order in whole or in part or repeal by law or whole or in part after giving a show-cause notice not less than 15 days to the Corporation after enquiring into the reply, if any sent by the Corporation. Sub-section (3) deals with the enquiry to be made by the Government before passing orders either cancelling the resolution or order or repealing the bye-law or resolution which has to be indicated to the Corporation. Sub-section (4) refers to the powers of the Government to revise, modify or revoke an order passed under sub-section (3) on the representation made by the Corporation or otherwise. As a matter of fact, if sub-section (2) of Section 98 is viewed technically it refers to the independent and suo motu powers of the Government to exercise the power of cancellation or repeal as stated above only if the circumstances enumerated in sub-section (2) are available or exist. The reference or representation either by the Corporation or otherwise under sub-section (4) refers to orders of the Government after holding an enquiry regarding the subject matter with reference to any one of the situations referred to under sub-seciton (2) of Section 98. In that view of the matter, we have to now look into the matter from the angle of Section 443-A which was introduced in August, 2003. 8. Reading of the above section clearly manifests that this provision comes into vogue when once there is a challenge to the order of notice under Section 321 (3) by the party concerned. Apparently an appeal came to be filed before the Standing Committee in accordance with Section 444. 8. Reading of the above section clearly manifests that this provision comes into vogue when once there is a challenge to the order of notice under Section 321 (3) by the party concerned. Apparently an appeal came to be filed before the Standing Committee in accordance with Section 444. By virtue of sub-section (3) to Section 443-A all pending matters as on the date of coming into force of Section 443-A i.e., 20.8.2003, the appeals pending before the Standing Committee with reference to the 3 sections would automatically get transferred to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal if the matters pertain to Bangalore City Corporation, otherwise they shall appeal before the District Court. 9. When once a quasi judicial authority-KAT is constituted by inserting Section 443-A, the said authority is empowered to decide the controversy between the parties. The main appeal was still pending when the Government passed orders on 25.11.2004 on reference by Commissioner on 15.9.2003. After coming into force of Section 443-A with regard to any matter under Section 321(3), Commissioner had no power to refer the matter to the Government as KAT was seized of the matter - a quasi-judicial authority. It is wel within the competence of the respondent authority to approach the KAT for vacating the stay order if they were aggrieved by the said order. The learned Single Judge ought not to have split up the appeal into two portions, i.e. the main matter and the Interlocutory Application order by applying section 444 for one order and main appeal under Section 443-A. As the entire matter was seized with the KAT as on 20.8.2003, nothing could have been done by the Commissioner or the Corporation by referring the matter to the Government. Under these circumstances virtually Government has exercised powers under Section 443-A which had to be exercised by quasi judicial authority, i.e. the Karnataka Appellate Authority. The appeal before the Standing Committee statutorily stood transferred to KAT and parties are at liberty to seek for suitable and necessary orders at the hands of the KAT. Under the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.7.2005 is set aside. The order of the 1st respondent - Urban Development Department dated 25.11.2004 at Annexure-A is quashed.