High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K A Saleem S/O K Abdulla vs The Secretary on 21 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri K A Saleem S/O K Abdulla vs The Secretary on 21 January, 2010
Author: V.Gopalagowda And A.S.Bopanna
Between:

1.



IN THE HIGH CQURT OI? KARNATAKA AT BA?{-Gg=§L__(}f£§" 

Dated: 21st day of   3 T

Presefgt  f}  .  '

Harms Mr.JUsT1c:E Vff,}CJ-PALA C+t>WDA7L&;L&~if[A

An-d..__""" '-     
Hoxrble M§.JUS'I'I_CE.j%.i$.BCPAI§NAf%

wan' p.E2:nmN.§Jos.139a0-3:92:29; 0 lemmas;

Sri.K.A.Salcx-':m,4  ~
3/o.I~:.Am.z;;ua,;¢ ¢ 
Aged abeL1t_A32%_jzet»:s1fs,  
Residiiatg at Kallahaiili .4 
Vi3lage,1vv--Mafi1asag%g:'Post, ~ ' '
Sakaleslijgura 'I'a1_211<.;- '4 " -._ " ' « '"
Hassan District. . '  

 __S:i.V_Vi:K.:S21i§Iegdixnia_,_M .

'S/Vofiéafigow da,

 ' Aged  yearzs,
~Residi1:g;%a: Cegjnibcedu

Vilfiige .'§L1'1cifp(:vé','£,
15/iuéEige:_%é:"?€a1uk,

'V.,(3hikk.:uv:nagaiur Dist.

; .' l§;ri. D'harma Shetty,

_  :'$jG.Babu Shetty,

Aged about 49 years,

 '"£'Eesi:;iiI"ig at: S.P.R0a
Department oi_"'Mig1es  =:Geel'<";gy,-..'* V. 
Kanija Div'i;=;io12,_  " I  --.   .

   
Banga1ere«.~1. . "  b 

4. Deputy Cd'mfif1iSSiQI1€I'," _ 
Hassa:1,Distfiej:,    
Hasssagl.  "  _ A
 'i'111e'» _é;s:3is 2.-r11*:1t" 'Commissioner,
A Sakgiesiipvra Sub-Division,
sakaiesnpgea;
Haswn _¥;';)ist:5ict.

 :'i'11eLTa"h5§ldasr,
_ '.3361-u'r.Ta1uk,
_'  55;-3i'L1r',' Hassazz Qistxici. ..RES§'ONQE2N"I'S

    (By Sri.R.G.K0i1e, may

 000~



These W.Ps are filed under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the erd-ere at
Annexuzes-L, M 85 N dated :9-12-2009 and to dVii°ee£._ the
respondents to extend the period of lease of petitioners;  V' 

These W.Ps eoming on for 911. hearing

this day, Gopaia Gowda, J passed thVeA>f0ii0w_’ir1’g:+_: p

oknengfd

These common petitions: fzied’ by *

being aggrieved by the i1:np11g1ed_._d§I”€:1$5i*$_» lease
hoid rights prematurely,

2. The gfie*J;.a11ce””ef’ is that the 3rd

respondezit without considering
the expianetien them te the Show cause notice

and therefore Vie.v’vie’1tatien ef principles of natural justice.

ledmed éeeiirzeel hae urged that the impugxed

e:rdere_e~ fie be quashed by ailowing these writ:

d%dtdt:>ee:ms. “‘ d

W e Koile, learned Additional Government Advee.-ate

of the reependerzte submitted that against the

erders the petifieners have get an aiternate remedy

V’ “bf revisierx under Rule 53 amka Mirler Mineral

–p1jen1a’u5;re. ”

Concessian Rules, 1994 and {hay may be directed to avail

the said remedy.

4. The submission of learned

Advocate is no longer res-intega in Vi€W of -thé:~..cie:§;isiAo:1_: “of »

Supreme Court in the case of ‘

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK£§’_z’epor1V§éd.’i11 A11«{%19%99kkst3 22. f ;

5. Armexures-A, B _8s C legagséhdfieiadis Vgfiiiecuted in
favour of petitioners. 6»2»2009
and 20–1~2009 re§sp’eg:t§v<;1j;'I' –'i'f}:fs.¢" is one year.
All the i1np:.1gm;:d__V are dated 19-32-
2009» 'I;h;1s," Ease of first p€tifi{}I1(-3:3, the
cancellaticzn bf _V1<~::a$.V£:::=m;'.'4ViVJ*'.1v " of other two petitioners are

' ":'%3.f1,.rf;15i=':}:_'_L1res–E3, F & G are the Show causes issued

to élieging that they have ca:m'cd~«<)1f1 mizinizxg 01'

bf; machinaries. Azmexureswfi, J & K arc the

_ré:{p1i;¢i$'"'-giateaci 14-IE2-2009 submitted by mg petifiancrs. A

of impugxeé orders revgal that the explanations

éubmitted by the petitionem to the Show cause notices were

Ev

JUDGE

not at all considered. Therefore, the impugxed ord-:~::_'rS :'_t::§1'r2;f1ot

be sustained in iaw.

7. The writ petitioils are allowed ‘ ; n

orders are quashed. The 8rd

consider the explanation of tht’3.,e [‘)~;”:fCit§.£)V.1’1x’3I’SV,–“‘f.uIV1’f’3I3I} anti

thereafter pass appropriate ordei’s;”‘3,ecorfia:iaIiceV:vVith law.
The loss of lease mriod oii aceoum T’ i_mpugned orders
shali be extendeg’$N:.;§_o tifiati ‘eXteI£tv, _j_’~i£ explanation is

accepted by trio ‘

Sd/–

JUDGE

Sd/e