Dismissed

Sri. N. Nagaraj v. Estate Officer

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023WP/13328/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition seeking eviction quashing and possession. Relying on previous orders dismissing the landlord challenge, court ordered refund of security deposit four weeks after order receipt upon adjustment of dues.

What did the court decide?

Encouraged University to refund security deposit of Rs.1,60,000 within four weeks after receipt of order copy, after adjusting any dues payable by petitioner.

Sri. N. Nagaraj Vs Estate Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13328 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. N. NAGARAJ, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, REPRESENTED AS A PROP OF M/S SHRUTHI ENCLAVE, SHOP NO.5, GKVK, UAS CAMPUS/ BANGALORE - 560 065.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ESTATE OFFICER, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCE, GKVK, COMPTROLLER, BANGALORE - 560 065.

¶13

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCE, GKVK, COMPTROLLER, BANGALORE - 560 065.

¶14

DEAN WELFARE OF STUDENTS UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCE, GKVK, COMPTROLLER, BANGALORE - 560 065.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A AND A1 DATED 07/06/2023 AND 31/05/2023 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶23

"a) Call for the records from the 1st Respondent in respect of the impugned order Annexure-A & A- 1, dated: 07-06-2023 and 31-05-2023,

¶24

b) Issue writ of certiorari, by setaside Annexure-A & A-1 the impugned eviction order dated:07-062023 and 31-05-2023 issued by 1st Respondent for evicting the petitioner in vide No.sum/aa.ha./vi-2-gaa.kru.v.k./2023-24 in respect of Shop No.5, situated at Gandhi Agriculture Science center at canteen building(UAS), by allowing the Writ petition.

¶25

c) To re-deliver the possession of shop No.5 measuring 10 x 10, situated at Gandhi Agriculture Science center at canteen building(UAS) to the petitioner.

¶26

d) to grant such other releifs and deems fit under facts and circumstances of the case by allowing the Writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶27

The prayer that is sought is an offshoot of a writ

¶28

petition that is filed by the very petitioner before this Court in

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶30

W.P.No.20944/2022 and connected case. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 16.05.2023. By holding that the petitioner cannot hold on to the shop that was in the premises of the University. This Court had held as follows:

¶31

"9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The University has several shops for running businesses, one of which is allotted to the petitioner for running his business of photocopying, spiral binding and book binding in the University campus. The petitioner had been granted the said space from 05-09-1996. It was not pursuant to a tender notification initially. The first of the tender notification comes to be issued in the year 2012 to make the process transparent and to be in accordance with law. This results in the petitioner emerging as the highest bidder and was running his business in Shop No.5 which was allotted in his favour. Several such work orders have been appended to the statement of objections by the University. The first is on 26-10-2012 and subsequently on 24-07-2014, 27-09-2018, 16-12-2020 and 17.12.2021. But, in the latest tender notification, the 3^rd respondent/Bhumika Digital Copier emerges as the successful bidder. The period of contract is two years.

¶32

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that documentation submitted by the successful bidder has several short comings and notwithstanding those short comings, the University has accepted his tender. This contention does not stand to reason as the counsel for the University has placed all the documents necessary to refute the said submission of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rental agreement and experience certificate were not appended to the documents. The rental agreement and experience certificate which in fact appended to the tender document are produced along with the statement of objections. Therefore, it cannot be said that the documents were short submitted when the tender was submitted by the 3^rd respondent. The only issue now remains is, whether for the purpose of

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶34

generation of higher revenue the petitioner could be taken out and the 3^rd respondent/Bhumika Digital Copier could be brought in.

¶35

11. The University needs funds and for that purpose has certain shops being rented out to certain eligible tenderers through tender notifications every two years. The petitioner also has been a recipient of work orders or rental agreements having emerged as the successful bidder and the petitioner has been in the shop premises for over 27 years now. It cannot be lost sight of that in a tender process, if any other person has emerged as a successful bidder, unless he is disqualified on any ground, it cannot be the right of the 2^nd highest bidder to contend that he should be awarded the contract.

¶36

12. According to the learned counsel for University the petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs.15340/- per month and the 3^rd respondent had quoted Rs.16,520/-. The price difference every month is about Rs.1200/-. It is not the question of difference that matters. It is the person who emerges as the successful bidder in the tender process that matters. Admittedly, the bid of the petitioner is lower by Rs.1200/-. Subject matter of tender is a small business shop. Therefore, the petitioner cannot say that he is to have monopoly in running the business in the shop. If the petitioner has been in business for long time only through tender process, it is time that he abides by the result of such process.

¶37

13. Generation of revenue, in all circumstances, cannot be the only criteria. But, generation of revenue to a University can sometimes become a criteria, more so, when such generation is made out of a transparent tender process. Therefore, no right of the petitioner is taken away, as the entire process does not indicate any error, illegality, mala fides or favouritism in favour of the 3^rd respondent/Bhumika Digital Copier. When the process is transparent, such transparency will have to be given credence. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the tender process. Non-interference would not mean that the University is left with no discretion to negotiate with any of the tenderers. Writ cannot be issued on the plea of the petitioner. It would not however tie the hands of the University for any action.

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶39

14. These writ petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid observations."

¶40

The petitioner appears to have tossed the order

¶41

before the Division Bench, which also comes to be dismissed on 09.06.2023 in W.A.No.639/2023. The Division Bench has held as follows:

¶42

"This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in W.P.No.20944/2022 (GM-RES) clubbed with writ petition No.21825/2022 (GM-TEN) by which the writ petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed.

¶43

2. The above writ petition in W.P.No.20944/2022 was filed by the appellant challenging the eviction notice issued by first respondent/Estate Officer of University of Agriculture Science and writ petition in W.P.No.21825/2022 is filed by the appellant challenging certain minutes of meeting dated 05.09.2022 in terms of which the University had decided to issue tender notification in respect of Shop Premises where the appellant is running business for over ten years in favour of Respondent No.3. It is the case of the appellant that pursuant to a tender notification dated 29.08.2012 appellant having emerged as a successful bidder/H1 on 26.10.2012 has been occupying and running a photocopying and job typing shop in shop No.5 at the University Campus. That he was awarded a contract initially for a period of 11 months and thereafter every two years upon issuance of fresh tender notification he has been successful bidder. That in the notification issued for the year 2021-22 one Bhumika Digital Copier respondent No.3 in W.P.No.21825/2022 has emerged as successful bidder. Accordingly, a notice has been issued to the appellant calling upon him to vacate the premises on 17.10.2022 as the said premises has been allotted to the respondent No.3 Bhumika Digital Copier. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court by filing aforesaid two petitions.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶46

3. The appellant has also contended that merely because the bid of the respondent No.3 is higher the same cannot be the only ground for allotment of the shop as the appellant has been in possession of the same for over a period of ten years.

¶47

4. After having heard counsel for the parties learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with the tender process. Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before this Court.

¶48

5. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the minimum eligibility criteria has been set out in tender guidelines which requires an applicant to submit their experience certificate and permission letter issued by the competent authority which respondent No.3 has not complied with. That since respondent No.3 does not meet the eligibility criteria, mere quoting of bid amount higher than the appellant would not make it entitle for the shop premises. That appellant has been running the business since 1996 and has been the successful bidder since 2010 and all these aspects have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.

¶49

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

¶50

7. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the contentions of the appellant with regard to respondent No.3 not submitting the rental agreement and the experience certificate along with tender document and also taken note of the fact that third respondent had indeed submitted rental agreement and experience certificate appended to tender documents along with the statement of objections. Thus, since the said contention of the appellant has been answered, learned Single Judge has held the same to be untenable. As regards the issue of bid of respondent No.3 to be the highest bidder, the learned Single Judge has observed since the University has been renting out its shops to eligible tenderers through tender notification every year, who ever bids high would be the successful bidder. Taking note of the highest bid amount and the fact that the bid

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶52

amount of the petitioner is lower by Rs.1,200/- learned Single Judge has held that the appellant being the second highest bidder cannot claim any monopoly to run the business.

¶53

In the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, the appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, appeal is dismissed."

¶54

Now comes the challenge on the score that the Estate

¶55

Officer has not passed an order in accordance with law. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend about the Estate Officer passing the order in the light of the order of this Court and that of the Division Bench directing that the petitioner cannot hold on to the premises any more.

¶56

Learned counsel at this juncture would seek to vent

¶57

his grievance with regard to the non-refund of the security deposit of Rs.1,60,000/-, despite the vacation of the premises. The one fact would be clear in the submission made by the

¶58

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he has vacated the premises or the vacant premises is taken over by the respondent. Therefore, if the security deposit is to be refunded to the petitioner, University shall do the same in accordance with law, within four weeks form the date of receipt

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:42474 WP No. 13328 of 2023

¶61

of copy of this order, after adjustment of any dues that are to

¶62

be paid by the petitioner to the University.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0 CT: BHK

Sri. N. Nagaraj v. Estate Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N. Nagaraj v. Estate Officer

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

Mr Nabikhan Vs the Bangalore Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Sri. Ashoka. T Vs Smt. Varalakshmi. M. N.

Anantha Padmanabha Kini Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sneha Vs Mr Shankarananda G

M/S. Muthoot Finance Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Subbalakshmi Vs Sri. M Visvesvaraya Co-Operative Bank Limited