Allowed

K S Rangaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023WP/1581/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Deputy Commissioner's order calling for an e-auction for temple shop leases. Petitioners held valid leases granted by the Commissioner. Court held the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere with statutory leases granted by the Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 27.12.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner is quashed. Petitioners are entitled to consequential benefits.

K S Rangaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1581 OF 2022 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.S.RANGARAJU, S/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT, S S GHATI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN - 561 203.

¶9

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

¶10

SMT. D.HEMA, W/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO.29/1, SHIVANAGARA, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU, PIN - 560 010.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF MUZURAI, M S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI, IST FLOOR, ZILLAADALITHA BHAVANA, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN - 562 110.

¶18

SHREE GHATI SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE, S. S GHATI, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN - 561 203.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI HARSHITH. N.BALAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2021 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a communication dated 27.12.2021, made by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate by which, a tender is called for leasing out the

¶25

¶26

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶27

items that were leased out in favour of the petitioners by separate official memoranda.

¶28

Heard Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Harshith N. Balakrishna, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶29

Brief facts of the case that leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶30

The petitioners claim to be the vendors of all pooja material that are sold in and around respondent No.3 – Shree Ghati Subramanya Swamy Temple (‘the temple’ for short), to the devotees. The temple is a Grade ‘A’ temple as notified by the State Government. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (‘the Commissioner’ for short) issues three

¶31

¶32

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶33

official memoranda, one on 28.02.2018, conferring certain rights of sale of certain items, in favour of petitioner No.1, commencing from 17.03.2018, for a period of 5 years. The period gets over today (16.03.2023). The other lease that was granted on 13.08.2018, was with effect from 23.06.2018, which would get over on 22.06.2023. The third lease is granted on 13.03.2018, in favour of petitioner No.2, which was to commence on 28.07.2018, for a period of 5 years. Therefore, would be in subsistence upto 26.07.2023.

¶34

All the aforesaid leases that were granted, was by the Commissioner. During the subsistence of the said leases and the petitioners are carrying out their businesses in terms of the said leases. Later, as a bolt from the blue, a communication comes to be made on 27.12.2021, not by the Commissioner, but by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of Bengaluru Rural District (‘the Deputy Commissioner’ for short), by taking away the lease

¶35

¶36

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶37

rights granted to the petitioners, directing that all those items which were leased out to the petitioners, permitting them to sell the items in and around the temple, be leased by conduct of an e-auction. It is this communication that drove the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶38

This Court entertaining the petition has granted an interim order of stay of the impugned communication, pursuant to which the petitioners are now continuing their businesses in terms of the lease, pursuant to the aforesaid official memoranda.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge a solitary contention for the present, that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction as the leases that were granted by the Commissioner could not have been taken away by the Deputy Commissioner, who has nothing to do with the power to be exercised under

¶40

¶41

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶42

the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (‘the Rules’ the short).

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 - temple

¶44

would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners to contend that to generate a level play field and to open competition to everybody to participate in the business, the Deputy Commissioner has taken such steps by the impugned communication, for years together, the petitioners and their family have been getting the rights and others have been denied the same. Since the term of leases are over or about to be over, the temple should conduct an e-auction and therefore, he would justify the communication of the Deputy Commissioner.

¶45

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶46

appearing for the State would toe the lines of the learned counsel for respondent No.3, to contend that the term is

¶47

¶48

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶49

over and authorities should be permitted to act in accordance with law by granting lease rights by way of e- auction.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶51

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Three official memoranda is issued by the Commissioner in favour of the petitioners granting certain lease rights for selling of items as obtaining in those three official memoranda. All the three official memoranda were issued in the year 2018, one on 28.02.2018 and other two on 13.08.2018. All the three were to be operational from different dates i.e., 17.03.2018, 23.06.2018 and 28.07.2018. Therefore, the subsistence has been for the last 5 years and the petitioners have been carrying on their businesses under the leases so granted.

¶52

¶53

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶54

The issue in the lis is, whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication or pass such an order directing to conduct of an e-auction, which in result, took away the right of the petitioners granted by the Commissioner .

¶55

Admittedly, the temple is an Grade A temple; the rights and privileges of the parties are to be determined by the Commissioner in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Rules and the Commissioner has not passed the impugned communication. Though any writ being issued at the end of the tenure would be futile as the term of the lease itself is over or getting over in the near future, what sans countenance is the power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, which is contrary to law, as observed hereinabove.

¶56

¶57

WP No. 1581 of 2022

¶58

Therefore, the communication of the Deputy

¶59

Commissioner dated 27.12.2021, is to be obliterated and the authorities are left to their discretion to lease out the items that were leased out to the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, once the lease of the petitioners would come to an end.

¶60

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

a. The writ petition is allowed.

¶63

b. The impugned communication dated 27.12.2021, issued by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner stands quashed.

¶64

c. The petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the impugned communication.

¶65

Pending I.As’. are disposed, as a consequence.

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

NVJ

K S Rangaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K S Rangaraju 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

Smt. Bi Bi Ayesha Siddiqha Vs the Government of Karnataka

M/S Hill Land Properties and Developers Vs M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Private Limited

Venkatesh Vs K C Mohan Kumar

Shri. Sudarshan Ramesh Vs Union of India

Sri.R.Pichandi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Kanchan India Limited Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited