"L
BANGALOR
DA__ED 11-113 1*11I_::25"" DIRVOFA %
THE HON'BLE MR. A1sIAm:i 3:*RA§;Ei)DY A
wnrr PET1T1cf:N [ GM-ARES]
BF grv. rEma,:
1- sri. ImamabAj44 years
S./9 H.n;ji@r_»A11;sz. %
T iE3~'::yics:{" "
Re.sideni*3f_' .
Nala1;§ad:5s6--T.124' %
*Mu::aebiha1 fraauk
'Bijapurf.1'Jisi:1'ci_ A "
Malik¥iina,----5?' years
'V11'-bu"fiA"I7£ajfi$'I.7!' Ana:
j._ Household work
Resififint' ~1_jfNadadal
SL'9.'.z:!,L'};~i'&l-9.151.!-586 124
Mizddébihal Taluk
Bijsipur Dislricl - 1:. 1 11' IV
Ex)
(35; Sun. s. N. Sudha, Advqcale)
3' v
N!
.'.
.\-
AND:
1. Sri. Baeanagoudu, 45 yeam
Sin Barraigcuiida Pat}!
Occupation: Contractor
Resident of Gouda Oni
Nala'.w%e586 124
-Muddebihal Taluk
Bijapur District
2. The Branch Manager'*~-._
Syndicate Bank * '-- 1
Nalalwad-586124 '
Muddebihaiffaluk . _ V V_ .
_
3. The%_Regie11ai_;Mmnegefv.' ~ ' V
Regiénal ?£."}f1'.¢';%' '
S:'yndéea1e"t ' ' .. ' 5
Nee: lbrahixnp:11'VRe§1way--~Gate
Bija§:s;4536'1D1V*.. * .
for
Premises Wing
i _ _Manapa:-sea am
~ A U¢v1_ug'Ji~'i.'V._"lié:u-ict % RESPONDENTS
{S}’ih”i.A’1~Jagai§i3h Patil, .A.:.’.\.~.:-.’-a|.t.== .9! Reelngndenl No.1, M/s.
it it i 2 ” = and Dave, Advocates for Respondents Nos. 2 — 4)
V. _ illiriiliiii
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of india praying to set aside the acceptance of
the ptI_’er by the respondent bank vide the
In-1nnn.:_.:.1.. A..- ____ .._rs
I O. I .£-UUU VIUU l’\l’lIlUX|I!’U”\J.
(‘Alia-Ir 1-mafia 1-I-us fl’\”n’v\nn’n’n~ = I
vvulm IIIIIJU Iuv .|.I-JHUVVIH5. ,
bl
nieriun
W
Heard the Counsel [hr ithe respondent.
2. The firei ;__Jetiiienei– petitioner.
The :espt3§zdeiiat5Biiirilc’Vi;eeiii3ndents’ 2 to 4 has I!
branch at ‘ef…h.*l_uddebihel Taluk, Bijepur
rented premieee one Basavaraj likai. it transpires
‘ __ 1.7.5 respondent-bank had published a
i local Kannada daily newspaper in_v-iting offers
I53. ‘cum :fl|6l.|iI|#.|’i:II>4!.r’ wunuvI:unu Ian innuun ;un-I an Lnn:’a’:n.-u :3 IL’. 1-nu.-nu…’ _
lltfllll I13 l.ICIuII-I533 I. I flaw ‘Jul a Uuuul 5 -I I “IV Bluullkl
lloorz peeniises of such building. . The lirst petitioner who
it the building which was very close to the premises of the
” – which they were then oeeupying,_ made an uller of his
3 u .
building for the purpose, in terms of his ieii.er_ dated 23.5.2606.
/5
This Wlit ‘Petition coming onhfur thflii it ‘ .
It is contended that the second petitioner who it an
vacant site measuring 40×60 1’eet,’made an.olI’e_:r
nrnru-.rI\1 nsr in In.-.IinII “10-e “\ui’1h|’nI uni’ l.I’fii’.._. ulna ~fiI”{u.~s’\n:1uI$..i niini
a huiiding wouid Be constructed teifnis op
Annexures C and C1 to the peititiomp The petitioners, on the
one hand, were awaifingpa; Q0lt1m;§ini¢ati4Jii1’I_'()m the respondents
Z……-f’. . _ . . .. II…-:.. V..!’l”.._ I.._….,……”_~,…[…,…~I V “~._, ‘Q… ‘.- .. . .11.! . I
III3U1ul Cl-U I-II.U.I.l~.’,JV1I.UI 1:5 UWIIHWI (‘U’hi,”l.-‘l|9_. WHNU U15 U!” I. I.
receive any _conin1__u:2icatio£i’.~ It “is. only upon the first
petitioner ol’_awi:aveat petition said to have
” respondent to contend that he
apprehended a suit ‘neing~’ip1ci’eIred by the petitioners herein to
” _ the eonsmaeiion of a building for purposes of the
that the Iirst petitioner became aware of the
£IIHl\II’J 1’ii’YAlI.I’lIIl\’ nl’ ‘ I-I. If-!I.!IU\fIlIlll’I JR Th IBl’;’Il\I’Ill.I’ LI
fill fl ‘JG ‘ Ivl ‘ n 3 WII I
‘cl I-III
AA tiiereetter issued a legal notice to the respondent.-tI ‘ to point
the building which was proposed to be constructed by
the first. respondent was on agricultural land, which has not
‘I_….._ .—..-..-_,4-.-l {‘.-__ __.-_ —-__Z–.-la-._..I _ ….. .,…, -__.I l”.-__n’l_–_ aL…|
[E511 UUIIVUI LOU LUI ll-U I-‘.’ guuuuu I11 Pl-IIIJUBWB auu .I.I.Il|.-ll I Lllfll.
§
the petitioners’ olI’er is a standing olfer and
eould not, without indicating their consent or .
offer pxeed to l_rm1ss.:t with the :’Zirstirespende11tVun¢_}ibeing”a
pubiie institution, it wouid oppeseti to pifbiié’; to’
ignore the -oiter made by the itvith the
Iirst respondent in respeet–ol’the was illegally put to
eeeireeresel ». The -‘é*’«=”-!n–*V M”-E, it
in vague terrias that iiliiiiiowing the procedures
and petitioner being lefl in a
4″ leici”ifsought.i:_:inl’orination- under the Right to
Infonnaiien Act, ?_.%5 the “‘ei:%eres and
~ . , are to be followed by the first respondent in
V the vague reply that was furnished by the Iirst
3-. It is -a_1-h_r pointed out that in terms of the
con’
‘File
yr»
A infoim:-ition providechit is eiear that four oi’i’ers were received ,
it out of this, the petitioner’s was one of them. There is no
it reason indicated to exclude the petitioner’s offer and to have
I
the effer ef the hrs’. reswndent. It is ..enee that
«L . . m . .,….-…..l._….n l…._I. ……. ….a:_.- …….t.. I’LL. ……l ~:_..”-….’¢d…..
IIIU !Ub!.RIIlL|UIII.”UI1Ill WES IIUI-Ills llllllll 11%| uuu .< h!.J_ '-_HE_ C
collusion with the first respondent in
accept the otter of the first responaient–to b..,ij:3;jj:;3g't'§,n it '
Y-
agriculturai purpose. 11 is in it§*1iis’tt3aclcgf*t1un¢i. present
petitioners are before tiiis..Court. _ it
5. The but, have not
chosen to
6.._bjcoiiiing–oia for line] hearing, it is stated at
the bar’ has completed construction of
. .
n._.§V ‘,1.1 . I. .. ..1 4.. 1… . .1..
Lftdj. Dulitllllg \-V!lv1HG11′.WEi:S PFOPUSGG 10 D15 011l3I’t3(l L0 lllfi
‘ For purposes of setting up its bank and the
“res1lmnden.itj_ hes, in fact, occupied and commenced Functioning
as a~.hiH;ikiin the said premises. In this light of the melt 1; he
that would be avaitsbie to the petitioners, ii” at alt, is to
seek damages it’. the petitioners are so_ entitled by way ofa civil
suit. ln that, the determination ol’ the loss that hssbeen caused
lo the petitioners would necessarily have to be .3
Civil Court as it would entailfindings of fact. H H V i in
Accordingly, the present peliiian
became inf!-..:-.’.-i.-…2I..*.~: while li__i1y loathe fiievtiiiciiers to”
approach a cempeleniflivil ,€’_”:buri’,* ii’e..’lhe peiiiieners are so
inclined and to seek sueli ‘entitled le.
54!-
‘judge
“av