Disposed

Bhimanagouda S/O Siddanagouda Patil v. Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2022WP/200413/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice seeking coercive steps regarding shop occupation under an agreement. Court found petition premature but granted liberty to reply within three weeks and restrained respondent from coercive steps pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to reply to the impugned notice within three weeks; respondent restrained from taking coercive steps pending decision within two months.

Bhimanagouda S/O Siddanagouda Patil Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.200413/2022 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BHIMANAGOUDA S/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KONNUR VILLAGE, TQ. TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 214

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA-586101

¶13

SECRETARY AGRICULTURE PRODUCING MARKET COMMITTEE TALIKOTI, TQ. TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 214

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI G.G.CHAGSHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

¶17

¶18

A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE NO.PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀA: PÀÈGªÀiÁ¸À(vÁ)/399/2020-21 DATED 13.08.2021 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT SECRETARY APMC TALIKOTI AS AT ANNEXURE - J TO THE WRIT PETITION; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 THEREBY ALLOWING THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Sri Viranagouda Biradar, learned Additional

¶22

Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. Sri G. G. Chagashetti, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.

¶23

Though this writ petition is listed for Preliminary Hearing, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

¶26

Petitioner being aggrieved by the notice dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure-J issued by the respondent No.2 has presented this writ petition.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2-APMC has allotted shop No.6 at Talikoti APMC to the petitioner as per agreement dated 12.11.1999 and in this regard, the petitioner was paying rent regularly however, the respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 13.08.2021 seeking coercive steps against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶28

Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in continuous occupation of shop No.6, as per agreement dated 12.11.1999 and thereafter the respondent No.2APMC is making efforts to dispossesses the petitioner without due process of law and as such, the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the agreement.

¶29

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that since the impugned notice dated 13.08.2021 is only a letter seeking explanation from the petitioner and as such he has to make reply to the respondent No.2 and therefore he submitted that writ petition is not maintainable.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.08.2021 and the writ petition is premature, however, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to give reply to the said notice and if such reply is made within three weeks from today, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate decision in the matter within two months of the reply to be filed by the petitioner. Till then, the respondent No.2 is abstained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

VNR

Bhimanagouda S/O Siddanagouda Patil v. Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimanagouda S/O Siddanagouda Patil v. Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

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

Azeem Pasha Vs the Central University of Karnataka

Anilkumar S/O Bhagiratha Kalantri and Ors. Vs the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Darshan Kumar and Anr. Vs Hunchappa S/O Yellappa Pujari

Sri. Dilsukhraj S/O Kishan Lal Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Jaichand S/O Laxmichand Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Sabanna and Ors. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.