IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANoALoRE,.___
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. 3usTICE Asi»ao.I«:~.B,.,;{:IN_(fi¥i'VIG'IE1I:I""' V
WRIT PETITION No.22824/2011.03?jLa'iéREsj"
AND WRIT PETITION' Mo.2284,?/2OlO,g'7~ E'
BETWEEN:
1.
AND; 'V
Sr: Kumara Swamy,
S/o Kenche Gowda, ,
Aged about 31 years, " . V
R/at E\io.341, Raiwvay Sta'tio':I~':,Ro'ad:f,--__
Channapatna Tov'~*,;n,,;' -L
Channapatna; " ' V »
Smt. Poor_nVIn"1a_,V"' 5*
W/o Dejvaraj',«._ , _
Aged about 3.1, ye-.a~r_,"
R/at No.314.,. Muluva_gaIa.ia"iI..Eieedé,
Mandipet Cross, C'haf;napa'.t.na Town,
channapatna. " 'E
i E' E. V" Petitioners
(i3'y._,_Sri.V,VIs\/vanath, Advocate)
The "C_om_mIss'I'oner for
IVDirecto..rate of Municipai Administration,
V.AV,Towe.r', Dr.Ambedi<ar Road,
V' ..fBaVng"a,iore.
_ Deputy Commissioner,
Ramanagaram DESUECEI,
Ramanagaram.
3. The City Municipal Councii,
Channapatna, Channapatna Town,
Ramanagaram District,
Represented by its Commissioner. Respo_,n«d_e-ntsv
(Byfki¥LDevdas,AGAforR--18<2.fr"Tiin,"
Sri A.V.Gangadharappa, Advocate for C/R«:VV3)v '
These writ petitions are filed under;/XrtiC'ie '_
the Constitution of India praying to q=uas.h~. ,t.he=_or.der "d:at_e'c£::,s_*
17.07.2010 passed by the R1 vide Annexure~F--_in respect-of shop '
No.5 and 6 situated at ward No.3, .M;(3. Road,' Cvha2nria;pa,tVna_.3by
aiiowirig this writ petition; and etc. ' '
These writ petitions coming on,fo'r--..Ff'rei'i'njinaryiiearijng this
day, the Court made the foiiow.i_n"g: ' V
oaptni'
........................-jj-_
Sri R.De\/das, theiiijearnegd A€dd"itio'nai'jfjoveirnment Advocate
is directed to take ::n_oti;c'e,._ior""thehfigstponirieht"Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petEt_ionyersw..ha--yAe the challenge to the order,
dated 17.7.2010 (A'4nn.e'x'u're~i:.'} passed by the respondent No.1 in
respectcfi tHgg;ndp_Nos.s and 6 snuated at\Nard No 3, M.G.
_ RoadJChannapatna.f.?
-V3. Sr4i”\/..”‘-V\:/gviswianath, the learned counsei for the petitioners
“ti*aa,t the petitioners took part in the tender~cum–open
V7a.’au_ct-id.-n”process initiated by the respondent No.3 for giving the
“on tease basis. As their bids were the highest, the
Threspéondent No.3 executed the tease deed, dated 5.5.2009. The
fififl ”
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have paid the security deposit of
Rs.S,64,SOO/- and Rs.S,60,500/– respectiveiy. They ha4ve:fals.o
been paying the monthly rent regularly.
4. Sri Viswanath further submits that. the pet’it’ioh’§2rls”~have»_ ”
made further investments and improved :El1ei;’Slii~f5D
them conducive for their businessloperatilonls,._V’T,hlis{fii:..done
incurring enormous expenditure, SO He
complains that this morning’ als’o_yt’i–ie%.:_:’olca’l.lg’vp.o’iice came to the
shops of the petitioners and must vacate
the shops.
5. Sri}R;–De\/dais;-.ithe”l’.le”a–rried Additional Government
Advocate appearing”forllthe’re”s.p_(:in4dent Nos.1 and 2 submits, as
of__n_ow noǤ;action aplpe.ars____gto have been initiated against the
petiti_oners.__ v
6,.’SrilA.\/iCarilgadharappa, the iearned counsel appearing
respondent No.3 submits that these petitions are
He brings to my notice that the impugned
V” cfomlmunication, dated 17.7.2010 (Annexure-F) is issued by the
‘iil4j_Com;rnissioner/Director of Municipal Administration to the Deputy
fl}.3’H
Commissioner. He submits that if the Deputy Commissioner’ has
to act on the impugned’ communication, he wouid
petitioners on notice and take the possessiryn.
shops/sheds, in accordance with iaw.
7. Sri Gangadharappa submits “that
communication is issued, because iaw
are not compiied with befor4§e~i.,_iea’si’n:qt to the
petitioners. He submits that be given to
the avaiiabiiity of the” more number of
intending individuaips the process, which
wouid have of revenue for the
respondent ” V V I» i it
8. This co-nsiderabie force in the submission
As of now, no firm cause of action
has p~et.i~tioners. If the Deputy Commissioner has
iW:t’o”act onthe v_i.:~ripulgAned communication, he is bound to put the
on-niotice. Further, it is aiso open to the petitioners
repiy to such notices. It is thereafter that the
De:p’uty..r§Commissioner has to take a decision in the matter.
iii”-«ixieeidiess to observe, if the petitioners are to be evicted from the
FIEI4.
MD
shop–units in question, the same cannot be without foliowingthe
due process of law.
9. In the result, these petitions are disposed
the submissions of the learned advocates,’ .ai’l .4_’_the’-. it
contentions open and without expressing o’pi.n:i’o.np
tenability or otherwise of the irnpugVn.evEj–..r;omrnuniCaVt’ilo_n’;’:._;Furthei”,
it is for the Deputy Commissioner tola-pt'”e.x’p»editio£:’sl\,zp and act in
public interest. T A Q.
10. No order as to costs; it