IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE A V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCH'IG:'E.R.I V
WRIT PETITION Nc5,29831-833,:'2'O1'0'or 201.0 I
AND WRIT PETITION NO.3O887/=.ZO1!'_.-)-A{L.B--R.ES-) 7
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI M SANJEEVE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, _ _
S/O LATE M.S.MALLEGOWDA., R/AT NO'-4569,,
BEHIND V.T.TEMPLE, KOTE, _
CHANNAPATNA TOWN 1 '
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT,» _
SMT. B.T.GHArIA'MAiI.I..31 ' ._
W/O M. SAN3iEEV='fE GOWDA, , I'
AGED ABOUT 4S..,YEAT?~SI ' '
R/AT NO,' 1569,..E;.EI~IIN;D' 'I/_.'I'>..TEMPLE,
KOTE, CHANNAPATi'JA_,TOW'P~!_, ' -
RAMANAGARA.M
SMT. ROORNIEMA,' . _
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O,_Cf'«DEVARAJU, Si-IQ_P..NO. O6,
IVLG.R'OAD,"CHr"..NNAPATNA TOWN,
"w.,RAMAN,AG,A'RAM, EEISTRICT
PETITIONERS
7r_(By Sri B TE:1'NDUE SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
A A V E
' .TH.E STATE OF KARNATAKA
,__""REP;. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN
'=DE--'JELOPMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
FAMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
«~ BANGALORE-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VISHWESWARIAIAH TOWER,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT -
RAMANAGARAM. I
4. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ,
CHAN NAPATNA, " _
RAMANAGARAM.DISTRICT, ' I.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIO_N'E.R
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.DEvDAS, AGAFOR R-_ Sri A I}, G;AIIIGATDARAPPA FOR
C/R4) . : . –
THESE WRIT”P’ETIT1G_NS 4.A.REIv..I=ILED.,UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND
227 OF THE CO’N_STjITUTION ,OEi,’E.I,N’–DIA “»PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DT.17,..7_,.1O “RASS1ED,,_Es~./_ THE CO.MMISSIOENR DIRECTORATE OF
MUNICIPAL ADMINO.STRATION,’»..THE R2 WHICH IS AT ANN-A, THE
LETTER] DIRECTIONSI.ORDER«DT;-2′;.7.I0 & 29.7.10 PASSED BY TEH
DEPUTY COM’MISSIoNEI'<,I';I<.PROJEc:T–~ DIRECTORATE, RAMANAGARAM
DIST. RAMANGARAM T'HE"R3. "–gt QUASH THE ORDERS DT.9.9.10,
ISSUED BYTHE R4 ASPER ~.AN'N"-C TO G IN RESPECT OF THE SHOP
NO.3, 4,; 8!. ,5 GODOWN '& SHED, SITUATED AT M.G.ROAD,
EHANNAIéA«TNAfTO_wN, wH..I.C.H ARE DESCRIBED AT THE SCHEDULE OF
'w_RIT PETITION AND ETC.
SETH-ESIE…W=RIT’PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRL HG. THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADETEE FOLLOWING:
QRDER
The-..petitioners’ grievance is over the Canceliation of the
of shop units. The petitioners were aliotted the shops
auction conducted on 20.12.2007.
88}!
2. Sri Indu Shekar, the learned counsei for the petitioners
submits that the impugned orders are without the author_i:t’y.V_of
law and without jurisdiction. He complains of the vioiIatio~n_’;o.f_VftE1e’*_
principies of natural justice. He submits
Commissioner was directed to put theV=..,pet_itiQne’r=son”-notice
this Court, by its order, dated i,2,s,o7.2.o*m, f’T..r,.¢,._pé:puty.fi
Commissioner has not issued any notice to the’ petitioriers. On
the other hand, the respondent l\lo._.4;M.unic’iv.pga~i. Council has been
putting the petitionerson noti~ce:,. jf ‘
3. Sri Indu. petitioners have
caused the their learned advocate.
The reply at ali, so contends Sri Indu
Shekar. i-Ale, furtheriv in respect of 51 persons, no
lé:é1VSe..deedA:’wi.iiats–oeveVrVis””eXVecuted. However, those persons are
allowedggto’table…i:An-opossession of the shop units belonging to the
V7op°’*~v’responde_nt ‘ii-le aiso complains of hostile discrimination.
*4ifjiegs-ubmits”that the respondent No.4 is not doing anything to
staggering rent arrears from 161 allottees.
Sri A.V.Gangadharappa, the iearned counsel for the
‘respondent No.4 submits that the impugned Annexures–A to C
HBH.
4
are in the nature of inter office correspondence. Such
communications cannot be the subject matter of challenge in the
writ proceedings. He submits that only 5 persons took’. p.ait_V_in
the open auction and those 5 persons are;”””ai-soq:_5the’=_
representatives, reiatives/shadows of the earlier~i–ail_ojttee:s iigwho 2
were allotted the shop units in the auction:-.Cohd’ugcted’—i4n’=
As what has been done is not.___in V”compiia:fucej_:.vv_iVth_T§
requirements of the provisions of thue”Kxar’ngataVl’§a*iiiravnsparency in
Public Procurement Act, officers have
initiated the proceedings forgthei_c–anhceli.ati’o’n.’ i.’fitii’e allotments of
the shop units. Hgeilgfhevifreintais fetched in 2004
and fetchedliin the recurring loss is about
Rs.70,000/~ ,
5. i\’f’.~’.I.§3angadh_a_rappa, ailaying the misgivings raised
bv”_the1″petit.ion.e*i*s'”–side submits that the respondent No.4 is
bound ‘to’ ‘act si’m’i«!.ari=v’in respect of the allottees whose cases are
VV7__aki:1 to the “pVet’itioners’ cases. He further submits that the
.1 ..reSpo.nden.t No.4 has fairly offered to refund the entire premium
.”-f’_~-arno.–un’t:. H
QBH.
6. Sri R.Devdas, the learned Additional Government
Advocate also has a grievance over the petitioners’fl’a__cts,.of
managing to get the shop units allotted at a rate;i’o’w.er–.’..than”«_
what was given in 2004. He submits that under.-Suefctiyofnii
the said Act, the Government has the powefjr’°to’:4.ca«l|4″fovryltwbieif
records with a view to ensure transp_aren’cy in thepryocéurement
process. Sri Devdas submits that”>..t_he_Vpubiic:in’tere,st is of
paramount importance in cases. .AVlBec.aus,e of the mistake,
which may have beenVcomm’itted..,b.y_V s:on’ie,.’of§;t.ri’e officers, the
interests of the réspo_n”dVen_t..:Vloca.5…..:body cannot be
permitted to suffer, .
7. I do not «see in the submission urged on
behalf of the petilt’ion:ers.”regarding the violation of the principles
off”natural,ijuis-tice,, The””‘p’etitioners were indeed put on two
notilc’-as,” caused the reply to the notice through
:i)*t.l’:eir learned a.dvo:<_:a;te. The submission urged on behalf of the
–i%.l,”p;eti_tio,ners that’1~the notice ought to have been given only by the
4’~i5e<pu'tyConumissioner also does not commend itself to me. It
. suffice, if the functionary who is securing the eviction of
Viwltheépetitioners, has issued the notice.
33%.
8. On my pointedly asking when the petitioners were put in
possession, divergent answers were given. Sri Indts.Shge’i<ar
submits that the petitioners took the possession _
30.06.2008. Sri A.V.Gangadharappa subrnits t'hat"-th_e'V"date it
making over possession to the petitioners
30.06.2008 or 05.05.2009, the pet'i'tiVonerSV. have i'b'eeinv«–.cari'ying–.t"
on their business. They must have some.impr_oyge:ments to
the shop units so as to 'éthefiiri requirements.
Noticing the infirmities. in the allottees
cannot be thrown. ijisalilllllthe more so, when
they are their livelihood. It is
nobody's case have committed any fraud.
For the lapse on'”‘thhe~.;j.art”».of'”‘.the officials, the private parties
c-anriotg lputito “u..nmitigVa’ted loss.
“‘9~.:\t’–et VVar*ldtjhetV’aspect of the matter which cannot be lost
vl*T__sighVt of is4″tha’tVal’though the auction was conducted in December
.1 “the cancellation proceedings are initiated 2’/2 years
in _’}uly 2010. If the respondents were diligent in
‘ ‘v..,gth’eVVVrna’tter, things would have been different.
9.314.
7
10. My perusal of the tender cum open auction
Notification, dated 03.12.2007 reveals that it was open to a
desirous party to submit its tender and take part in thepaiuction
or to take part in the open auction without submitting”‘itsf,te_n’éer.~~.
Such being the tender notification, it cannot the
petitioners are blameworthy.
11. My scrutiny of the rent -agreeineiit
power is reserved to the Municipality’-to c,ancei–th0e’:alloitment of
the shop for the lapse on th’e_”fpart’_VAof,V–the~«..Qfti’cials in adhering to
the transparency law, Furth.e.r,’_the.Karn.ataE{qa.V,*–i”ransparency in
Public Procuren9iVe’tit:i,7,{§ct,’0;’f.i’9F§f9~tand vRules framed thereunder
do not provizdelfor theev_ilct–io’ri«.’of the allottees on the higher
officers noticing the,_:om.issio’nVi’h: adhering to the provisions of the
for the above-mentioned reasons, the
Vmimpugne.d”%can.ce’iiaiti’on proceedings are unjustified)unsupportable
-4fjarid’v..unsusta,in1able. However, it is also trite in law that in
{~-‘.:Vexe’r0cise>_o’i? the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
‘ léghis Court would not quash an order, merely because a
ipaprty makes out a case in law; the public interest has to weigh
REM
3
with the Court. In taking this view, I am fortified by the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMNIKLAL N.
BHUTTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, reported in
SC 1236.
13. If the impugned orders areggqVuashe.d’;”‘then A
consequence is that the petitioners wouldgcontiéit:.ue-.’
rentals, which aggregate to Rs.13′.00_O/~Vi’0_r”afl the put-.i*
together, whereas the prevaiiingl:”rate._ around
Rs.70,000/- per month. Therefore’A–_th«e’ pubiic interest
demands that this Court shou’id.h.riotV the canceilation
proceedings! petitioners’ interests are
aiso requiredttogbesafeguaa’d’ed:e’ftective|y and guardedly.
my view, the ends of justice would be
Hrueasonabie time to the petitioners to
locate .a’it._ern’ati’v,e p.iVati’es, vacate the present premises and shift
A the aite-rna_tive piaces.
iEiA.i__4As”‘ri.ghtiy pointed out by Sri Devdas, Section 18 of the
Acttempowers the Government to cail for the records with a
ivi–eVV”toi ensure the transparency. I do not propose to give any
£58.
9
direction to the Government to cail for the records of the auction
held on 20.12.2007. It is for the Government to take a decision
whether to caii for the records and examine the whoie
16. Considering the facts and circumstances”-of
this Court deems it fit and just to grant’ab’outé_one,yearj’s:perio0.d.
to the petitioners to vacate and hand ove’r__ti’..eA.vaca_n_.tA
to the respondent No.4 subject ‘to:”‘the io*i..iQwi.n_”g and’
conditions:
i)
The petitioners shaiir.vac-atieandi.%.han’dover the vacant
possessiVon:o«f_ or ‘befo re 01.1 1.201 1.
thisVreg’ard,..,’n4tih锑*petitioners’ side has filed the
merino”urnd’e_rtaki”ng.’iito vacate the premises on or
tiefore 1.20011. The same is taken on record.
The.petiti_oners are aiso at liberty to take out ail the
objects iaid in their shops.
zThne’Vr’espondent No.4 shaii refund the entire security
00 ‘*u__deposit/premium amount to the petitioners. It is
it made ciear that the respondent No.4 siiali not retain
any portion of the said amount or forfeit any
amount.
QB!-i.
vi)
vii)
10
The petitioners are directed to restore the shop units
to the respondent No.4 in the same condition in
which they took their possession.
The petitioners shaii keep clearing the _
as and when they fall due tiiithey xracatesaihrj ‘hyanci ” it
over the vacant possession the respon-de’nt”i\io_,_4’::;_A«
The petitioners shaii also-i.i»;Veep’ci.ea riyngfthei
and water charges in re4s’pe:ct,V_of th’e.:shopVf%units till
they vacate the Vp–re:i’nises.;’~ ” ‘ ‘
It is open to the peti:t.ione~rs:vto”ta_ke”‘.p’a’rt in the tender
process}: is going to
initiate .Vfvo’ir.a-!.i:otti’nig::’the shop units afresh at the end
of o’ne”yVea’i’_. other things remaining the
..«}gsame (ifn’t’h.e:v_offg:=:rs made by the petitioners and the
A _ otherpersons/applicants are for the same amount),
x’i.–.;thVeéVu.”_r–esposndent No.4 shaii accept the petitioners’
offe rs}
F15 H.
11
16. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order
BS t0 COSECS.
A
bvr