Disposed

Mr Rathnakar Kamath v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022WP/45720/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PETITION sought mandamus to direct respondent to remove unauthorized auto rickshaw stand opposite petitioner's land. COURT directed respondent to consider representations and pass orders under Section 97 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, within three months to re-locate the stand.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider petitioner's representations dated 18.03.2013 and 24.02.2015 and pass appropriate orders within three months to re-locate the unauthorized auto rickshaw stand.

Mr Rathnakar Kamath Vs the Panchayath Development… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.45720 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RATHNAKAR KAMATH AGED 54 YEARS. S/O. LATE VAIKUNAT KAMATH R/AT CAR STREET, KOTESHWARA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574201.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K. ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KOTESHWARA, KUNDAPURA TALUK-574220.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 18.03.2013 (ANNEXURE-D) AND 24.02.2015 (ANNEXURE-E) AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE UNAUTHORISED PARKED VEHICLE OPPOSITE TO THE LAND IN SY.NO.288/IA2-0.02 AND 288/2 0.09 ACRES OF KOTESHWARA VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK. ANNEXURE-A AND B.

¶16

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the representations filed by him on 18.03.2013 and 24.02.2015 with the respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent to remove the unauthorized auto rickshaw stand established opposite to the land in Sy.No.288/1A2 and 288/2 of Koteshwara Village, Kundapura Taluk.

¶20

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a commercial property which faces a road on the northern side where an unauthorized rickshaw stand is laid. The petitioner claims that the rickshaw stand restricts the movement of the petitioner and other occupants of the building as well as customers. He therefore submitted representation on 18.03.2013 to the respondent to move the rickshaw stand, which evoked no response. He thereafter requested the respondent in terms of two other representations, which were not considered, which has compelled the petitioner to file the present petition.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the auto rickshaw stand is unauthorized and the Panchayat has not taken steps to regulate the establishment of the auto rickshaw stand.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that based on the representations of the petitioner, a resolution was passed on 26.02.2015 by the respondent that no permission is granted for the establishment of the auto rickshaw stand.

¶24

Section 97 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1993' for short) deals with the establishment of public landing places and cart stands, which reads as follows:

¶25

"97. Public landing places, carts stand etc.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act and subject to such rules as may be prescribed a Grama Panchayat, may,

¶26

(a) provide public landing places, halting places, and cart stands (which last expression

¶27

¶28

includes stands for any animals and vehicles of any description) and levy fees for their use; and

¶29

(b) where any such place or stand has been provided, prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person within such distance thereof, of any public place or the sides of any public road, as the Grama Panchayat may specify."

¶30

A perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that it is the respondent who has to provide for the public landing places or places for halting of vehicles. However, before providing such facility, the respondent is bound to consider the needs and necessities of the citizens as well as the nuisance and disturbance that may be caused to the users of the road.

¶31

In that view of the matter, a duty cast is upon the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in the light of Section 97 of the Act of 1993.

¶32

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent to consider the

¶33

¶34

representations of the petitioner dated 18.03.2013 and 24.02.2015 in the light of Section 97 of the Act of 1993 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

It is needless to mention that the respondent shall

¶36

take necessary action to re-locate the auto rickshaw stand

¶37

to such place as is felt reasonable by it.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

NR/-

Mr Rathnakar Kamath v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rathnakar Kamath v. the Panchayath Development Officer

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 F M Ummer Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Kashif Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri H K Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sree Shankarmutt Agrahara Vs the Assistant Commissioner