Karnataka High Court
Sayed Moosa S/O Sayed Fakir vs The Director on 15 December, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 104510 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104510 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SAYED MOOSA S/O SAYED FAKIR
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. COURT RECEIVER
OF M/S. GOOD LUCK HOTEL AND LODGING
R/O. ASHRUKHAN GALLI, HONNAVAR
TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST.UTTARA KANNADA-581334.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, AMBEDKAR ROAD,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAYYA TOWER
SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYAT HONNAVAR
DIST.UTTARA KANNADA-581334.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 104510 of 2022
A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
AND TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 29.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q TO THE
WRIT PETITION, AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
B. CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER
THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING
FOR RENEWAL OF TRADE LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 2022-2023
DATED 17.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND P TO THE WRIT
PETITION IMMEDIATELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
On 24.08.2022, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.102831/2022 for issuance of a direction to the Chief Officer to consider his application for issue of a trade licence for the year 2022-2023 was disposed off by reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an application for renewal of trade licence within a period of two weeks from 24.08.2022.
-3-WP No. 104510 of 2022
2. This Court stated that if such an application was made by the petitioner, the Chief Officer was required to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 10 days.
3. The petitioner, however did not file the application on or before expiry of two weeks i.e., on or before 07.09.2022 but, filed application only on 20.09.2022. The 2nd respondent has proceeded to reject his application on the ground that it was beyond the period of two weeks permitted by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition.
4. In my view, the 2nd respondent ought not to have taken such a hyper technical objection to reject the petitioner's application. The impugned endorsement is therefore quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner filed on 20.09.2022 on merits and pass appropriate orders in -4- WP No. 104510 of 2022 accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.
SD JUDGE AM