Allowed

M/S Padmamba Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2022WP/579/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Karnataka quashed notices issued by a Panchayat Development Officer and a Police Sub-Inspector. The court held that issuing notices directing the halting of construction and demanding documents during a Civil Court interim period, where the petitioner was not yet a party, was without authority of law.

What did the court decide?

The notices dated 18.12.2021 and 22.12.2021 issued by Respondents 3 and 4 respectively are quashed.

M/S Padmamba Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.579 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S PADMAMBA RICE MILLS PVT. LTD., NO.100/1 CITI CENTRE, J C ROAD OPP TOWN HALL, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI SUMAN R, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶8

S/O H RAMESH.

¶9

HARIPRASAD,

¶10

S/O SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.167, NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560097. ...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR.COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI PAVAN G.N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶14

¶15

BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THASILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU-560090.

¶17

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HURALICHIKKANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU-560090.

¶18

POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, SULADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560090. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4, R3 SERVED, SMT.SRIVIDYA ZIRALI, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS IA 3/22 AND 4/2022)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 18.12.2021 ISSUED BY R-3 VIDE ANNX-A. QUASH THE POLICE NOTICE DTD 22.12.2021 ISSUED BY R-4 VIDE ANNX-B. DECLARE THAT THE NOTICE DTD 18.12.2021 ISSUED BY R-3 AND POLICE NOTICE DTD 22.12.2021 ISSUED BY R-4 IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION VIDE ANNX-A AND B.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 18.12.2021 issued by respondent No.3 calling upon the petitioner not to proceed further with the construction forthwith and also notice dated 22.12.2021, issued by respondent No.4 calling upon the petitioner to appear and furnish relevant documents since, the jurisdictional Civil Court has granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo.

¶26

Heard Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Pavan G.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Mrs.Srividya Zirali, learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent.

¶27

It is not in dispute that as on the date of passing interim order by the Trial Court directing the parties to maintain status-quo, petitioner was not a party to the suit. Even otherwise, in the absence of source of power, the impugned notices at Annexures-A and B are one without authority of law.

¶28

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) The writ petition is allowed

¶32

ii) Impugned notice dated 18.12.2021 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A and impugned notice dated 22.12.2021 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed.

¶33

iii) Liberty is reserved with the petitioner and the proposed respondent to agitate their rights in the pending suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court.

¶34

In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.Nos.1/2022, 2/2022, 3/2022 and 4/202 do not survive for consideration. Hence, they stand disposed of.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

M/S Padmamba Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Padmamba Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. 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

Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nilakanta T Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Amit Kumar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Manjula Vs the Commissioner

Sri G Ranganath @ Sri Ranganatham Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike