Disposed

Sri a Thangavelu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021WP/4320/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging letters seeking new shop licence applications. The Court allowed petitioners to remain in possession until 31st August 2021, permitted their participation in a fresh tender starting 1st September 2021, and directed voluntary vacating by the specified date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to remain in possession till 31.08.2021; fresh tender to start 1.09.2021 allowing their participation; undertaking to vacate filed.

Sri a Thangavelu Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.4320 OF 2021(GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. A. THANGAVELU S/O M. ANGAMUTTU CHATTIAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT 361.1, NARASEGOWDA ROAD 7^TH CROSS, NANJANGUD TOWN

¶8

SMT. ASIYA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED ALLI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.156

¶9

BEHIND URDU SCHOOL CHAMALAPURA STREET NANJANGUD TOWN

¶10

SRI. MANJUNATH CHIKKANNA S/O LATE N.C. MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT 2124, CHAMALAPURA STREET, NANJANGUD TOWN

¶11

SRI. N.V. GOPAL S/O VENKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT 8^TH CROSS, R.P.ROAD

¶12

NANJANGUD TOWN …PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SHRI. B.V. GANESH NAG FOR SHRI. BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATES)

¶14

[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

¶15

¶16

AND :

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER NANJANGUD CORPORATION NANJUNGUD-571 301

¶19

THE PRESIDENT NANJANGUD CORPORATION NANJANGUD-571 301

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KRISHNARAJA BLVD ROAD K.G.KOPPAL, KAJJIHUNDI

¶21

MYSURU-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SHRI. M. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & R4; SHRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶23

[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE])

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 18.12.2020, AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-3 AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND LEGITIMATE EXPRESSION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-2 TO LET THE PETITIONERS CONTINUE IN THE LEASED PREMISES UNTIL COMPLETION OF ONE YEAR AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND C.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners are in occupation of shops belonging to the Najangud City Municipality. They have filed this writ petition to quash the letter dated 18.12.2020 vide Annexure-A, by which the City Municipality has sought to call applications from new licencees for the financial year 2020-21. In view of the COVID pandemic, petitioners have sought 10 years time to vacate the premises and to continue to be in possession of the shops.

¶29

After arguing the matter for some time, learned Advocates on both sides agreed for disposal of the writ petition by permitting the petitioners to remain in possession of their respective shops till 31st August 2021. Thereafter, third respondent shall be at liberty to call for fresh tenders in which the petitioners may also be permitted to participate.

¶30

In view of the said submission, third respondent shall be at liberty to start fresh tender process for the period

¶31

¶32

commencing from 1st September 2021. Petitioners shall be

¶33

at liberty to participate in the said tender process.

¶34

Petitioners shall file an Affidavit in these proceedings, undertaking to voluntarily vacate and handover possession of shops in their respective occupation on or before 31.08.2021.

¶35

Petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶36

In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.

¶37

No.2/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶38

No costs.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

SPS

Sri a Thangavelu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Thangavelu 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

Sri. S.G. Ramesh Kumar Vs Sri. Annappa

M/S Bhaskar Hotel and Restaurant Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri C.Bheemaraj Vs Smt. Rathnamma

A Sadashiva Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner

A N Ashok Vs Union of India

B. S. Rajanikanth Vs State of Karnataka