Dismissed

B Shivashankar Reddy S/O Chandrashekhar Reddy, v. Siruguppa Town Municipal Office

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023WP/109831/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging demand notices issued by the Siruguppa Town Municipal Office. The court held that the petitioner, who was authorized to collect rents, could not escape liability to deposit collected rents to the corporation merely because business suffered due to dwindling hawkers.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the demand notices was dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.

B Shivashankar Reddy S/O Chandrashekhar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 109831 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 109831 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVASHANKAR REDDY S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR REDDY, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: OLD K.H.B. COLONY, BALLARI ROAD, SIRUGUPPA, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.C. HUKKERI, ADV. FOR SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SIRUGUPPA TOWN MUNICIPAL OFFICE, SIRUGUPPA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶14

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶15

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.10.10 15:00:28 +0530

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DIST: BALLARI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B. SHARANABASAWA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE FORM OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICES ISSUED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D BEARING PUSASEE/LEELAVU/2014-15 DATED:17.09.2014, ANNEXURE-D1 DATED:31.10.2014, ANNEXURED2 BEARING NO. PUSASEE/LEELAVU/2014-15/775 DATED:

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 109831 of 2015

¶21

19.12.2014 AND ANNEXURE-D3 BEARING NASASEE/LEELAVU/201415/837 DATED:13.02.2015. HENCE THIS WRIT PETITION;

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Captioned petition is filed assailing the demand notice

¶25

issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-D series.

¶26

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶27

Respondent No.1 floated tender for collection of day-to-

¶28

day rent and weekly rent from the hawkers, vendors and other businessmen, who were utilizing the market area belonging to respondent No.1. Petitioner was successful bidder and pursuant to acceptance of his bid, he was authorized to collect the rents.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has

¶30

suffered loss on account of dwindling hawkers in the market area. The petitioner’s grievance is that there was drastic decrease in collection of rent as there were very few hawkers found in the market area. It is in this background, the

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 109831 of 2015

¶32

petitioner claims that he is not in a position to pay the amount due to the corporation. The question that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether the petitioner can escape his liability in depositing the rents collected by him to the respondent No.1-Corporation.

¶33

On examining Annexure-G produced by the petitioner himself, it is clearly evident that petitioner has collected rent from the hawkers. The representation submitted by the petitioner himself vide Annexure-E would clinch the entire controversy between the parties. AnnexureE is communication sent by the petitioner where a request is made by the petitioner to waive of the amount of Rs.9,20,000/- which is legally due to respondent No.1Corporation.

¶34

It would be useful to cull out the relevant portion of the representation submitted by petitioner vide AnnexureE, which reads as under:

¶35

�� �� �!"�

¶36

�� # � $%��&� � �!� � �� '�(�� !) � ��*� � � � � �� !� � ��# � + � %

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 109831 of 2015

¶38

��# �� ,- � ./01203� � ��!�� 4��!� �� !� � ��5 � 6 � � ��

¶39

� � �7�� ) �� !� � !8� � 9:��!� �� !� � ��5�6# � ��7��;:</:///=2�� 4�

¶40

�� !� � ��5�6# � ��7�./:1/:///=2�>�?@# � �)A�� !�� 9�&�+�BC��!� ��

¶41

� � !� � ��5 � 6 � � �DE�6��7� � 4 ��7��;:</:///=2�#�F �� G��# �� ,-�# � +!��H�

¶42

� � !�� 4 � � �>!#�7�� !� � ��5 � 6 � � �DE�6��7� � 4 ��7��./:1/:///=2�

¶43

#�F � +�BC��7��00:./:///=2�#�F �� G��# �� ,-�# � +!��H�� 4 � �

¶44

�� !� � ��5 � 6 � � �� 7I!H�� (�� 7I!8� � 9�� # � � � �,!�� 6 !8�&JK� � !8��7�� !8� � � � 4 � ��!��L�� !F � #�F!� � �!��*#�F � �M� � GN� � ,!C��7� � 4 ��7��O:./:///=2�#�N�� P�L� � �� 4 � !G8�

¶45

� � !)�Q�� '�(��7�� 4 � �

¶46

On reading the above said representation, the

¶47

petitioner herein clearly admits his liability. If the petitioner has collected the rents from the hawkers, who were doing business in designated market area and though his business has suffered, he cannot escape his liability. On examining the records, this Court is of the view that no indulgence is warranted. The writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11617 WP No. 109831 of 2015

¶49

¶50

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

B Shivashankar Reddy S/O Chandrashekhar Reddy, v. Siruguppa Town Municipal Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Shivashankar Reddy S/O Chandrashekhar Reddy, v. Siruguppa Town Municipal Office

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

Hazarat Nizamuddin Charitable Social and Vs Town Panchayath Yallapur

M/S Acqua Port, Vs the Mirjan Gram Panchayath

Shri Prakash S/O Basappa Ramagond Vs the State of Karnataka

Savitri Kom Bhairveshwar Bhat Vs Krishna Damodhar Prabhu Since Deceased by His Lrs

Shankarrao Govindrao Bhandurge Vs the Commissioner, Belgaum

Umakant Somashekhar Kshatriya Vs the State of Karnataka