Dismissed

Shri. Ramswaroop v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2020WP/105658/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

id>Petitioner sought writ of certiorari to quash an endorsement denying license renewal and mandamus to consider applications for shop premises. Court found petitioner evicted from premises and declared petition infructuous, dismissing it as fresh allotment proposes.>>

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as having become infructuous; petitioner allowed to apply if future invitation for allotment is made.

Shri. Ramswaroop Vs Deputy Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.105658/2016 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. RAMSWAROOP S/O KRISHNARAO KAMBLEKAR AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, NEAR MHP SCHOOL, BEHIND DIWTAR’S HOUSE, KOPPAL-583231.

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANOOP G DESHPANDE, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231.

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL-583231.

¶14

CITY MUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL-583231.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) (SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.12.2015 BEARINGNO.SAM/KAM/SWAHO/DCK/144/KAM/NUM/17583/ 2015-16-10352 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-H, ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 6.4.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE MEMORANDUM DATED 8.5.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-G.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

¶23

226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

¶24

i)	Issue a writ or order or dir	ecti	on in	the
	nature of writ of certiorari	to q	uash	the
	endorsement		da	ted
	18.12.2015 bearing			No.
	Sam/Kam/Swaho/DCK/144	/Ka	m/Nu	m/
	17583/2015-16-10352 issu	ed	by	the
	Addl. Deputy Commissio	ner	as	per
ii)	Annexure-H Issue a consequential writ	or	order	or
	direction in the nature	of	writ	of
	mandamus to the respond	ent	No.2	to
	consider the application da	ted	6.4.2	015
	submitted by the petitio	ner	as	per
	Annexure-F.
iii)	Issue a consequential writ	or	order	or
	direction in the nature	of	writ	of
	mandamus to the responden	ts N	o.1 an	d 2
	to consider the memora	ndu	m da	ted
	8.5.2015 submitted by the	peti	tioner	as
	per Annexure-G.

¶25

¶26

2. Annexure-H, endorsement has been issued

¶27

to the petitioner stating that his application cannot be considered as action being taken to evict the occupants of shop premises of Sahitya Bhavan. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondent No.2 to consider his application dated 6.4.2015 for renewal of license to run KMF milk booth at Sahitya Bhavan, Koppal.

¶28

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶29

the respondents 1and 2 files a memo dated 24.2.2020 which reads as under:

¶30

The counsel for the respondent-State, respectfully submits on instructions from the Special Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, Koppal District that the petitionerRamswaroop herein is not in possession of Sahitya Bhavan premises and has long been evicted from the aforesaid premises. However, presently, he runs one more petty shop in the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal office premises.

¶31

The KMF (Karnataka Milk Federation) area marketing manager has informed that the Milk Parlour Units allotments proposal and representation have been submitted to the authorities for consideration, however, no

¶32

¶33

fresh allotment has been made including for the ‘Sahitya Bhavan Premises’.

¶34

The aforesaid submission may be taken on record and the petition be dismissed as having become infructuous in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

The above memo makes it clear that the

¶36

petitioner is not in possession of any of the premises of Sahitya Bhavan and he has been long back evicted. Hence, consideration of his application for renewal of license would not arise at this stage. However, it is open for the petitioner to apply, if the respondentAuthority invites application for allotment of the shop premises at Sahitya Bhavan, Koppal. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

In view of disposal of the main writ petition, pending applications if any do not survive for

¶38

consideration, hence, they are also disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

JTR

Shri. Ramswaroop v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ramswaroop v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Shivashankar S/O Doddabasappa Bakkannavar Vs Smt.Champa W/O Shashidar Kammar

Shankargouda S/O Ningangouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Arjunsa S/O Yellusa Katwa Vs Smt.Gangawwa W/O Vishwanath Nilogal

Shankar S/O Shankar Bangari @ Desai Vs the Thasildar

Sri.Jayaram Shetty Vs Nawab S/O Gousemohiddin Chavadi

Arjun S/O Satba Lohar Vs the State of Karnataka