Allowed

Devappa S/O Sannasiddappa Ganter v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023WP/103999/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a long-term tenant, challenged a communication authorizing disconnection of electricity supply to force his eviction. The Court quashed the communication directing power disconnection, holding statutory authorities must follow due process through appropriate legal forums for eviction.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 28.06.2023 to disconnect electricity was quashed. Respondents allowed to initiate eviction proceedings in accordance with law.

Devappa S/O Sannasiddappa Ganter Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6559 WP No. 103999 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.103999 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DANAPPA S/O. SANNASIDDHAPPA GANTER, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.4, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SHRI SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶14

ROHAN HADIMANI T High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

THE TALUK PANCHAYAT HANGAL, BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY, D.C. OFFICE, HAVERI.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HESCOM, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6559 WP No. 103999 of 2023

¶22

SRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND 4; SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 28.06.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN NO.THAPAMHA/MA.VI.THA.KA/VAHI411/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN EVICTING THE PETITIONER AT SHOP NO.4 SITUATED AT TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL AND ALSO TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned communication dated 28.06.2023 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-E and direct respondent No.4 to follow due process of law in evicting the petitioner from shop No.4 situated at Taluk Panchayat complex, Hangal.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6559 WP No. 103999 of 2023

¶28

Petitioner is a tenant of shop No.4 situated at taluk Panchayath complex Hangal for more than 15 years. On 05.04.2021, the Managing Committee of respondent No.3 passed a resolution and extended the term of tenancy of petitioner for a period of 3 years from 05.04.2021. The petitioner is been continuing as tenant in the said shop as on date. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 without authority of law issued a notice dated 14.06.2023 to handover the possession of the premises within 7 days. Thereafter, petitioner paid arrears of rent to respondent No.4. This being state of affairs tenancy having been terminated for non-payment of arrears of rent, respondent No.4 issued a communication to respondent No.5/HESCOM to disconnect the electricity supply to the shop premises. Thereby, respondent No.4 is adopting the tactics of forceful eviction of the petitioner by getting the electricity supply disconnected. This communication of respondent No.4 is being questioned by petitioner before this Court.

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6559 WP No. 103999 of 2023

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of respondent No.4 is highly arbitrary and highhandedness that respondent No.5 is trying to forcefully evict the petitioner from the shop premises and due to the said communication issued by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5, the staff of respondent No.5 are making frantic efforts to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner's shop premises and they have threatened the petitioner that if he objects, they he would come with the police and disconnect the electricity power supply. This is the grievance of petitioner that such highhandedness of respondents would land the petitioner on to the streets if his electricity supply is disconnected. Hence, he seeks to allow this petition and quash the communication issued by respondent No.4 dated 28.06.2023 vide Annexure-E and for a direction to respondent No.4 to follow due process of law while evicting the petitioner from the shop premises.

¶31

Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Taluka Panchayath who is the

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6559 WP No. 103999 of 2023

¶33

lesser of the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is a cantankerous tenant. He has not paid the arrears of rent for a long period and only on issuance of notice has bothered to make payment of rent and now he is not vacating the shop premises despite the tenancy having been ended and terminated. On these grounds, he contends that petitioner who is not paying the rent regularly does not deserve to continue in the shop premises and though such action was contemplated, but no such action is initiated and taken.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for both the

¶35

parties, it is a simple case of lesser trying to evict the tenant from the shop premises. In view of adamancy of the tenant, respondents/lesser is adopting his method of disconnection of electricity supply through the HESCOM/respondent No.5. I am afraid such action cannot be taken by statutory authority/respondent Nos.3 and 4 by

¶36

initiating disconnection of electricity supply of the petitioner’s shop premises. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 no

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6559 WP No. 103999 of 2023

¶38

doubt are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum to evict the petitioner from the shop premises, but the same will have to be done in accordance with law by following the due process of law. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot resort to disconnection of electricity supply through 5^th respondent, thereby forcing the petitioner to vacate the premises due to want of electricity supply. It is also submitted by both the parties that no eviction proceedings have been initiated by respondents with regard to the present petitioner's shop premises. In view of above discussion, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

ii) The communication dated 28.06.2023

¶42

issued by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5

¶43

so far as Sl.No.8 with regard to electricity meter No.H23459 is concerned is quashed.

¶44

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6559 WP No. 103999 of 2023

¶45

iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction or

¶46

otherwise of the petitioner from the shop premises in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

AM/-

Devappa S/O Sannasiddappa Ganter v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devappa S/O Sannasiddappa Ganter 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Narayan S/O a Kamat Vs South Central Railway

Anand Social Club Lokapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumanthappa S/O Siddhappa Shivanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Suryakant S/O Shivalingayya Muchandi Hiremath Vs Basavaraj S/O Nagappa Giddanavar

Maharshi Enterprise Vs the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Bagalkote Cement and Industries Limited, Bagalkote Vs Bagalkote Town Development Authority