Karnataka High Court
P Manjunath vs The Government Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2016
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION Nos.61105-61146/2016(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.P MANJUNATH
S/O PANDURANGA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT "GAJAMUKHA",
CHANNEL AREA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
VINOBANAGAR,
SHIMOGA-577 201
2.FAIROZ
S/O YUSIF YANE ISMAIL KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC:FRUIT SHOP
R/AT N.T.ROAD, OPP. SUNDARA ASHRAYA,
SHIMOGA-577 201
3.THIPPESH
S/O THIMMOJI RAO @ THIMMARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.46, L.I.G. 1ST MAIN,
K.H.B. COLONY, GOPALA,
SHIMOGA-577 201
4.SYED FHIR
S/O SYED RAZAK,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SHOP NO.5,
KASAGI PVT. BUS STAND,
SHIMOGA-577 201
5.M.ABDUL WAHAB,
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
2/15
S/O ANJA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTHI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS,
BUDDHA NAGAR,
KSRTC BUS STAND BACKSIDE,
SHIMOGA-577 201
6.B.RAMACHANDRA NAIK
S/O B.K.NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.54, RAMANATHA,
2ND PARALLEL ROAD, JAYANAGAR,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
7.B.NAGARAJ
S/O GUNDAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SRINIDHI NILAYA,
T.S.R. ROAD,
NEAR SEEGEHATTI SCHOOL,
SHIMOGA-577 201
8.M.JAGADISH
S/O MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
VINOBANAGAR,
SHIMOGA-577201
9.ASHOK
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT 2ND CROSS, KAMAKSHI ROAD,
DURGAMMANAKERI,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
10.YOGESH
S/O PANDURANGA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT B.B.ROAD,
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
3/15
SHIMOGA-577 201.
11.ALIJHAN
S/O VAJIR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT 7TH CROSS, ANNANAGAR,
CHANNEL AREA, SHIMOGA.
12.S.LAKSHMANA
S/O SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT SHOP NO.14, KASAGI PVT. BUS STAND,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
13.SMT.NEELAMMA
W/O KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT SHOP NO.15, KASAGI PVT. BUS STAND,
SHIMOGA-577 201
14.D.MAMATHA
W/O N.GANGADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR NAGAPPANA TEMPLE,
SHARAVATHI NAGAR,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
15.T.SATHYANARAYANA
S/O THUKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
VINOBANAGAR,
SHIMOGA-577 201
16.ULLAS
S/O PANDUMESTHRI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
VINOBANAGAR
SHIMOGA-577201
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
4/15
17.MANJUNATHA ITHAL
S/O CHANNAKESHAVA ITHAL
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/A ANANDA, NO.1
PUTTANANJAPPAKERI
SHIMOGA-577201
18.SMT.PUSHPA
W/O LATE SHASHIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A MANJUNATHA NILAYA
3RD CROSS, DR.R.M.L.NAGAR
SHIMOGA-577201
19.SHYLA
W/O LATE YOGESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A C/O NAVEEN, IST CROSS
`B' BLOCK,
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA EXTENSION
GADIKOPPA
SHIMOGA-577201
20.SMT.CHANNAMMA
W/O JAGANNATHA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/A 6TH CROSS
HOSAMANE
SHIMOGA-577201
21.SMT.PADMINI
W/O SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A 3RD CROSS, HOSAMANE
SHIMOGA-577201
22.MANIKANTA
S/O LATE T.MAHALINGACHAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A SHOP NO.42, KASAGI PVT. BUS STAND
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
5/15
SHIMOGA-577201
23.SMT.RAMAKKA
W/O PARASHURAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A SHOP NO.25
KASAGI PVT BUS STAND
SHIMOGA-577201
24.S.S.VASU
S/O SIDDAPPAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A NO.376, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
NEAR TEMPO STAND
IST MAIN, DR.R.M.L NAGAR
SHIMOGA-577201
25.SHABEER AHMED
S/O MOHHIDDIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A MADARIPALYA
URAGADUR MAJARE
NIDEGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK-577201
26.BABU
S/O JAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/A 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN
DR .R.M.L NAGAR
SHIMOGA-577201
27.B.PRAKASH
S/O BALANAIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A C/O E-06,
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA EXTENSION
GADDIKOPPA
GOPALA POST
SHIMOGA-577201
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
6/15
28.S.M.VENKATESH
S/O C.A.MUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA KRUPA
SHARAVATHI NAGAR
6TH CROSS
SHIMOGA-577201
29.M.MOHAN PRABHU
S/O M.GOVINDARAYA PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A 4TH CROSS,
BACK SIDE OF SUBBAIAH ROAD
HOSAMANE
SHIMOGA-577201
30.L.S.RAVINDRA
S/O SIDDAPPA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A C/O B.Y.YOGESH
NEHA NILAYA, IST CROSS
PENSION MOHALLA
SHIMOGA-577201
31.JAGANNATHA
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT 6TH CROSS
HOSAMANE
SHIMOGA-577 201
32.SMT.SUMITHRA
W/O LATE S.KAMALAKAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT T.S.R ROAD
SHIMOGA-577 201
33.GANGADHAR
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
7/15
R/AT 1ST CROSS
KAMAKSHI ROAD
SHIMOGA-577 201
34.A.K.MOHAMMED KUTTI
S/O ALI MOIDU HAJI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT C/O SHIMOGA FOOT WARE
KASTURIBA ROAD
SHIMOGA-577201
35.ABDUL KHADAR
S/O ABDUL GHAFUR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC:FRUIT MERCHANT
R/AT TIPPUNAGAR MAIN ROAD
SHIMOGA-577201
36.SYED SAIFULLA
S/O SYED RAZAK
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT 2ND CROSS
MARNAVU BAILU
SHIMOGA-577201
37.SMT.MAHALAKSHMI
W/O LATE PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SAVAR LINE ROAD
SHIMOGA-577201
38.SMT.GEETHA
W/O H.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SHARAVATHI NAGAR
SHIMOGA-577201
39.R.HARISH
S/O B.V.RAMU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT SHOP NO.44/4
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
8/15
KASAGI PVT.BUS STAND
SHIMOGA-577201
40.SMT.VENKATAMMA
W/O JAIRAM
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT SHOP NO.44/3
KASAGI PVT. BUS STAND
SHIMOGA-577 201
41.B.SANGEETHA
W/O S.V.GIRISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT SHOP NO.44/2
KASAGI PVT. BUS STAND
SHIMOGA-577 201
42.SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT SAVAR LINE ROAD
NEAR MUTTON STALL
SHIMOGA-577 201 ..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.B.G.CHIDANANDA URS FOR SRI.PRASAD B.S.,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGA-577 201
3.THE COMMISSIONER
THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016
P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others
9/15
SHIMOGA-577 201 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SREENIDHI, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 14.11.2016 ISSUED
BY R-3 SHIMOGA CITY CORPORATION, SHIMOGA ISSUED TO
PETITIONER NOS.1 to 42 AT ANNEXURES-D, D-1 TO D41
RESPECTIVELY;
QUASH THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN W.P.23733-737/2011
DATED 29.08.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA AT ANNEXURE-E OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr.B.G.Chidananda Urs for Sri.Prasad B.S., Advocate for Petitioners Mr.V.Sreenidhi, AGA for Respondents 1 and 2.
1. The petitioners Mr.P.Manjunath and 41 others have filed this writ petition against respondent-Shivamogga City Municipal Corporation aggrieved by the impugned Annexure-D series notices issued to them on 14.11.2016 seeking to dispossess them from their petty shops which were leased out to them under lease deeds executed in their favour for a Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016 P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others 10/15 period of 12 years vide Annexure-C series produced with the writ petition. The impugned notices -Annexure-D series referring to a decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.Nos.23733-737/2011 (N.Lokesh and others Vs The Secretary, Department of Urban Development and others) rendered on 29.08.2016 issued these impugned notices seeking to vacate and evict these petitioners from their small shops in the bus stand at Shivamogga.
2. Learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.Nos.23733- 737/2011 -N.Lokesh and four others cited supra had held as under:
"7. To let out the property of the Corporation, the requirement under Section 72 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act is to be observed. Where public property is to be let out to the public then there shall be a wide notification calling for applications to participate to get allotment to carry out business. It is clear that no person has got any inherent right even for the reasons that he was carrying on business for considerable length of time. Providing opportunity to persons who were carrying on business at particular length of time by Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016 P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others 11/15 itself is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. All persons who are interested in carrying on business that too in the property, which belongs to the Corporation or the Government has to be put on notice by wide notification and applications from the aspirants are to be considered on the basis of eligibility. Under the Act, lease has to be executed for one year. When such being the case granting license for more than one year is nothing but colorable exercise of power. In certain cases it is extendable for five years it is only by prior permission of the Government. The prior permission of the Government can be obtained only under the acceptable circumstances. By and large, the lease period is only for one year. Under these circumstances and in light of the above provision, lease executed above one year stands lapsed and automatically get cancelled. Hence, respondent-Corporation has to see that the tenants whose term of lease is completed by virtue of lapse of one year or in case of five years where prior permission has been taken, can issue notice to vacate premises and fresh notification has to be issued to make available to the public and on the basis of the acceptable principles allotments are to be made. While issuing notification, the priority and Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016 P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others 12/15 preference has to be given to various sections of people like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Women and physically challenged and reserved candidates who are from very poorer sections of the society. In that view of the matter petitioners are not entitled to any special treatment.
With these observations petitions are disposed of and respondent-corporation is directed to comply the order in issuing necessary notice where lease is completed after one year or 5 years with prior permission and allot the said premises on the basis of eligibility criteria".
3. Learned counsel for petitioners has urged before the court that the provisions of Section 72 of The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 does not provide for previous sanction of the State Government for lease period below five years vide Section 72(2) of the said Act of 1964 and the present cases said lease deeds were executed for a period of 12 years in favour of the petitioners after a Circular was issued in that regard by the State Government authorizing Municipal Council to grant lease exceeding five years. He also submitted Shivamogga Municipal Council got converted to Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016 P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others 13/15 Municipal Corporation to which para materia provisions contained in Section 176 of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 would apply. The provisions of Section 176(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 provides for grant of a lease for a term not exceeding three years. However, learned counsel submitted since at the time of grant of lease in the present case in the year 2011 since Shivamogga was a Municipal Council covered by Municipal Council Act, 1974, the lease in question is valid in favour of the petitioners to operate for a period of 12 years and therefore misinterpreting the Judgment of this court quoted above the respondent-Shivamogga Municipal Corporation issued impugned notices and the petitioners have been threatened to be evicted within a period of seven days only from the respective shops in question under the impugned notices-Annexure-D series dated 14.11.2016, they have filed the present writ petitions before this court.
4. Prima facie, the contentions raised at bar before this court appears to be correct but the petitioners ought to have made such reply or representation with the aforesaid provisions of Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016 P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others 14/15 law and material in their possession like lease deeds for a period of 12 years etc., before the respondent -Shivamogga City Municipal Corporation bringing it to the notice of the learned Commissioner-Respondent No.3 so that he could pass appropriate orders upon such representations before taking action in pursuance of the impugned notice and really evicting the petitioners in question.
5. The writ petition is therefore a little premature and the petitioners deserves to be relegated back before the respondent No.3-Commissioner of City Municipal Corporation, Shivamogga before whom the petitioners can lead appropriate evidence and make their representations in this regard.
6. The petitioners are therefore directed to appear before the respondent No.3-Commissioner of City Municipal Corporation, Shivamogga in the instant case on 07.12.2016 at 11 a.m. and make representations to the said authority with relevant evidence relied upon by them and said respondent -Commissioner is directed to pass appropriate Date of order: 30.11.2016. W.P.Nos. 61105-146/2016 P.Manjunath & others vs.State of Karnataka & others 15/15 speaking orders on the said representations of the petitioners within a next period of four weeks after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners or their authorized representative dealing with all the objection of the petitioner separately.
7. Until the respondent No.3-Commissioner decides the representations of the petitioners, no coercive steps in pursuance of impugned notices at Annexure-D series dated 14.11.2016 be taken against petitioners and they may not be evicted from their shops in question without appropriate orders being passed in this regard by respondent No3. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, a further period of four weeks will be allowed to them to seek appropriate remedy.
With these observations petitions are disposed of. No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE SBN