Allowed

Iranna T Gouli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023WP/104041/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants challenged a notice to disconnect electricity issued by the Taluk Panchayat to force their eviction. The High Court held that while the lessor can pursue legal eviction, statutory authorities cannot forcibly disconnect power to displace tenants without proper eviction proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the communication dated 28.06.2023 directing disconnection of electricity; direction to Respondents to initiate appropriate eviction proceedings in accordance with law.

Iranna T Gouli Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6734 WP No. 104041 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 104041 OF 2023 (LB-UC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

IRANNA T. GOULI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.1, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,

¶9

HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶10

SAROJA R. CHAKRASALI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.5, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,

¶11

HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶12

MAHAHMED RAFIQ KONDAVADI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.15, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI MKANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka,Dharwad

¶14

HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶15

K. BASAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.9, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,

¶16

HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶17

M.V. HEBBAL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.10, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,

¶18

HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶19

VEERABHADRAPPA MAHARAJAPETE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.8, TALUK PANCHAYAT

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6734 WP No. 104041 of 2023

¶22

COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶23

C.M. DIXIT, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 2, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶28

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶29

THE TALUK PANCHAYAT, HANGAL, BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY, D.C. OFFICE, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶30

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶31

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HESCOM, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4; SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 28.06.2023, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT

¶35

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6734 WP No. 104041 of 2023

¶36

NO.4 IN NO.THAPAMKA/MA.VI.THA.KA/VAHI/2023-24/411 VIDE ANNEXURE-D INSOFAR AS AT SERIAL NO.6 H23456, SERIAL NO.9 H23460, SERIAL NO.13 H39772, SERIAL NO.11 H23464, SERIAL NO.12 H23465, SERIAL NO.10 H23462 AND SERIAL NO.7 H23457; A WRIT IN A NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN EVICTING THE PETITIONERS AT SHOP NO. 4 SITUATED AT TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, ETC.,.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to

¶40

quash the impugned communication dated 28.06.2023 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-D and direct respondent No.4 to follow due process of law in evicting the petitioners from the shops situated at Taluk Panchayat Complex, Hangal.

¶41

Petitioner are the tenants of shop Nos.1, 5, 15, 9, 10, 8 and 2 respectively, 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 petitioners for a period of 3 years from 05.04.2021. The petitioners

¶42

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6734 WP No. 104041 of 2023

¶43

have been continued as tenants in the said shops 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, petitioners 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

¶44

of the petitioners by getting the electricity supply disconnected. This communication of respondent No.4 is being questioned by petitioners before this Court.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of respondent No.4 is highly arbitrary and highhandedness that respondent No.4 is trying to forcefully evict the petitioners 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

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6734 WP No. 104041 of 2023

¶47

making frantic efforts to disconnect the power supply to the petitioners' shop premises and they have threatened the petitioners that if they object, they would come with the police and disconnect the electricity power supply. This is the grievance of petitioners that such highhandedness of respondents would land the petitioners on to the streets if electricity supply is disconnected. Hence, they seek to allow this petition and quash the communication issued by respondent No.4 dated 28.06.2023 vide Annexure-D and for a direction to respondent No.4 to follow due process of law while evicting the petitioners from the shop premises.

¶48

Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Taluka Panchayath who is the lessor of the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioners are a cantankerous tenants. They have not paid the arrears of rent for a long period and only on issuance of notice have bothered to make payment of rent

¶49

and now they are not vacating the shop premises despite the tenancy having been ended and terminated. On these

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6734 WP No. 104041 of 2023

¶51

grounds, he contends that petitioners who are not paying the rent regularly do not deserve to continue in the shop premises and though such action was contemplated, but no such action is initiated and taken.

¶52

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it is a simple case of lessor trying to evict the tenants from the shop premises. In view of adamancy of the tenant, respondents/lessor are adopting the 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 initiating disconnection of electricity supply of the petitioners' shop premises, unless the electricity bills are not paid. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 no doubt are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum to evict the petitioners 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

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6734 WP No. 104041 of 2023

¶54

5^th respondent, thereby forcing the petitioners 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 petitioners shop premises. In view of above discussion, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

ii) The communication dated 28.06.2023

¶58

issued by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 so far as the petitioners herein are concerned is quashed.

¶59

iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction or otherwise of the petitioners from the shop premises in accordance with law.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

MRK/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Iranna T Gouli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iranna T Gouli 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

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

Anil Kumar Chirania, Vs Ballari City Corporation

Smt. Laxmibai Vs Smt. Sharada

Mallangouda Sankangouda Patil Vs Ramapppa Kallappa Ningannure

Smt. Rekha W/O Dr. Ramakrishna Nayak Vs Smt. Hema W/O Ramakrishna Nayak

Sri Mahantgouda S/O Budigouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka