Karnataka High Court
Sri. T. R. Shivadas vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION Nos.12092-12094/2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T.R.SHIVADAS
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT D.NO.205, NELLIHUDIKERE,
SIDDAPURA-571 253,
N KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. SRI IMRAN KHAN,
S/O MOHIDDIN NAWAS KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NELLIHUDIKERE,
SIDDAPURA-571 253,
N KODAGU DISTRICT.
3. SRI MOHAMMED ALI A,
S/O ABDUL SAMMAD,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 514, NELLIHUDIKERE,
SIDDAPURA-571 253,
N KODAGU DISTRICT
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS V., ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY IT'S SECRETARY TO
2
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
MADIKERI-571 201.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 253.
4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
NELLIHUDIKERE GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
NELLIHUDIKERE,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 253.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPARA, AGA FOR R1
SRI ISMAIL, ADV., FOR R2, R3 AND R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
13.03.2018 IN SO FAR AS FIXING THE TRADE LICENSE
FEE FOR RUNNING CHICKEN MEAT SHOP I.E., SERIAL
NO.2 IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the public notice dated 13.03.2018 bearing No.Gra.Pam.Ne.Ha 2017-2018 insofar as fixing the trade license fee for running chicken meat shop vide Annexure-C to the writ petitions and also for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to fix the trade license fee for running the chicken meat shop in compliance with provisions of Section 199 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act by following Section 315 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act.
2. Sri Ismail, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 on instruction submits that in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath, the Grama Panchayath issued Annexure-C - public notice inviting general public to apply for the license for the year 2018- 19 in respect of chicken meat shop. Hence, these writ 4 petitions are not maintainable. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
3. Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal before the competent authority under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. In view of the above and also in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85, these writ petitions are not maintainable, wherein at paragraph No.9, it is held as under:
"9.Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under 5 the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and others, (2001) 6 SCC 569, that :-
"6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."
5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram 6 Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, 4th respondent - Grama Panchayath shall not precipitate the matter further. The competent authority shall consider the appeal filed by the petitioners on merits without reference to limitation and pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB