Disposed

Smt. Neelam W/O Shripad Betgeri v. the Deputy Commissioner Haveri District

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021WP/100706/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench exercised discretion to decide not to examine the merits of writ petitions challenging government notifications on lease renewal. Court observed that the relevant lease period was expiring during pendency, hence disposed of petitions while reserving liberty for renewal applications. None parties nor result

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; liberty reserved for petitioners to approach municipalities for lease renewal and respondents to take steps in accordance with law.

Smt. Neelam W/O Shripad Betgeri Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

W.P. NOS.100706-100716/2018 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NEELAM W/O SHRIPAD BETGERI, BY GPA HOLDER ANAND S/O SHIVAMURTEPPA BETAGERI, AGE:34 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:LAXMI FOOT WEAR SHOP NO.1, BLOCK NO.1, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶8

RAJSHAKER S/O SHIVAPPA KORISHETTAR, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O GEETA TRADERS (KIRAN SHOP), NO.4 BLOCK NO 2, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶9

MADANLAL S/O KISHOR KUMAR SANGHAVI, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:HIMALAYA TRADERS SHOP, (READYMADE GARMENT) NO.8, BLOCK NO.1, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶10

VEERSANGAPPA KUDRI, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S, SHIVANAND S/O VEERSANGAPPA KUDARI, AGE:43 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:SHIVA DRESSLAND SHOP NO.1, BLOCK NO 2, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶11

¶12

RAMESH S/O BHAICHANDBHAI KOTAK, AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:SAVANUR KHARA AND SWEETS SHOP NO.5, BLOCK NO.2, IDSMT COMPLEX HAVERI-581110

¶13

GOVINDRAM S/O PHOOLCHANDJI KHANDEWAL, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:JEEN BHAVANI DRESSES (GARMENT), SHOP NO.8, BLOCK NO.2, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶14

C F KARIYAPPANAVAR, BY G P A HOLDER DEEPAK S/O GOPALKRISHNA HULLUR, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:SONY DRESS PALACE SHOP NO.7, BLOCK NO.2, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶15

RAMESH S/O SHESHMALJI KHANDELWAL, AGE:58 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O: MEENU TEXTILES, SHOP NO.2, BLOCK NO.2, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶16

BABURAO S/O HEMADRAPPA KALAL, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:VIJAYALAXMI JEWELLERS SHOP NO.3, BLOCK NO.2, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110

¶17

JAYSHANKARLAL S/O NARAYANBHAI PATEL, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:POONAM PLYWOOD AND HARDWARE, SHOP NO.6 BLOCK NO.1, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110.

¶18

BASAVARAJ S/O GUNDAPPA GUNDANAHALLI, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:AARPANA PHOTO STUDIO, SHOP NO.2 BLOCK NO.2,

¶19

¶20

IST FLOOR, IDSMT COMPLEX, HAVERI-581110

¶21

... PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. DEEPAK C.MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-580111.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI-580111.

¶26

THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL HAVERI, DIST HAVERI-580111.

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶29

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 18.01.2018 AND 04.08.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDETN NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-M & A3, B1, C1, D2, E1, F1, G2, H1, J1, K1 AND L1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

¶30

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The controversy involved in the present petitions

¶33

revolve around the legality, validity and correctness of the State Government Notifications dated

¶34

¶35

18.01.2018 and 04.08.2017 issued in relation to premises leased out by municipalities under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners

¶37

and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶38

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, material on record indicates that vide circular dated 26.10.2009, the State Government incorporated point No.3 which enabled the respective municipalities to renew the lease for a period of 12 years on certain terms and conditions in respect of the premises, whose lease had expired prior to the date of issuance of said circular. However, subsequently the State Government issued two more circulars i.e., circular dated 18.01.2018 and 04.08.2017 under which the said condition regarding renewal of lease in favour of the existing tenants,

¶39

¶40

whose period of lease expired was deleted and any further lease of premises was directed to be done by way of public auction in terms of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 R/w Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities Rules (Guidelines of Officers Grant of copies and Miscellaneous Provision) Rules 1966 R/w Karnataka Public (Transparency in Public Procurement) Act, 1999.

¶41

As stated supra, the legality, validity and correctness of the subsequent notifications dated 18.01.2018 and 04.08.2017 are challenged in the present petitions.

¶42

The material on record also discloses that the period of lease in respect of premises of the petitioners had expired prior to issuance of the State Government Notification dated 26.10.2009. The said notification also discloses that the period of lease deserves to be renewed for a further period of 12

¶43

¶44

years subject to enhancement of rent as stipulated in the said notification dated 26.10.2009.

¶45

Undisputedly, the period of 12 years stipulated in the said notification dated 26.10.2009 will expire on 25.10.2021, i.e, less than 45 days from today. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, since the period of 12 years stipulated in notification dated 26.10.2009 is due to expire on 25.10.2021, coupled with the fact that the period of lease of all the existing tenants (petitioners herein) had expired prior to the aforesaid notification dated 26.10.2009, in my considered opinion it is not necessary to examine the legality, validity or correctness of the impugned notifications/circulars dated 18.01.2018 and 04.08.2017 and all the questions in that regard are kept open. Ordered accordingly.

¶46

¶47

Liberty is reserved in favour of the

¶48

petitioners to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including seeking renewal of the lease in their favour by submitting necessary representation to the respective municipalities.

¶49

As stated supra, since the period of 12 years stipulated in the notification dated 26.10.2009 has come to an end during the pendency of this petitions, nothing survive further in the petitions and the same are hereby disposed of.

¶50

However, liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners to approach respective municipalities for renewal/extension of the lease in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject premises.

¶51

Liberty is also reserved in favour of the respondents to take necessary steps in respect of the said premises in accordance with law.

¶52

¶53

Subject to the liberty reserved in favour of the parties and the aforesaid directions, petitions stand disposed of.

¶54

SD JUDGE

¶55

bvv/am

Smt. Neelam W/O Shripad Betgeri v. the Deputy Commissioner Haveri District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam W/O Shripad Betgeri v. the Deputy Commissioner Haveri District

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.Basavaraj S/O. Mallikarjun Matolli Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Siddappa S/O Gireppa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashant Kumar S/O Ramappa Hosalli Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Mangala W/O Ramesh Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Ramachandra Malavade Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimha K Bandarpalle Vs the State of Karnataka