Disposed

Ramesh S/O Ramachandra Malavade v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021WP/100742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants challenged State Government notifications mandating public auction for lease renewal of municipal premises. The High Court held that since the expiry date of the lease covered by the prior notification was imminent (within 45 days), no opinion was expressed on the merits. Petitions were disposed of in limine with liberty to approach the municipality for renewal and to re-agitate the matter

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach municipalities for renewal of lease; liberty reserved to re-approach the Court.

Ramesh S/O Ramachandra Malavade 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.100742-100746/2018 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMESH S/O RAMACHANDRA MALAVADE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.III.A, SHOP NO.2, GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶8

MAKTUM HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL RAHEMAN HALADI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.III B, SHOP NO.1, GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶9

FAROOQ S/O ABDUL RAHEMAN HALADI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.III A, SHOP NO.4, GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶10

HAZARESAB S/O MARADANSAB NADAF, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.III B, SHOP NO.14, GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶11

VITHALRRAO S/O GOPAL NAVALE, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.III A, SHOP NO.3, GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶12

¶13

CHAMANSAB H. GUNDUR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.III B, SHOP NO.15, GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. S S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU-1.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIH TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-1.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI.

¶20

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

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 ISSUED BY RESPONDETN NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The controversy involved in the present petitions revolve around the legality, validity and correctness of the State Government Notifications dated 18.01.2018 issued in relation to premises leased out by municipalities under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

¶28

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

¶29

Though several contentions have been

¶30

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,

¶31

¶32

subsequently the State Government issued circular dated 18.01.2018 under which the said condition regarding renewal of lease in favour of the existing tenants, 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.

¶33

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

¶34

The material on record also discloses that

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

deserves to be renewed for a further period of 12 years subject to enhancement of rent as stipulated in the said notification dated 26.10.2009.

¶38

Undisputedly, the period of 12 years

¶39

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 notification/circular dated 18.01.2018 and all the questions in that regard are kept open. Ordered accordingly.

¶40

¶41

Liberty is reserved in favour of the

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

SD JUDGE

¶49

bvv/am

Ramesh S/O Ramachandra Malavade v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Ramachandra Malavade v. the State of Karnataka

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

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

Narasimha K Bandarpalle Vs the State of Karnataka