Dismissed

Sri C R Dinesh Kumar v. Town Municipal Council

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023WP/5561/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge permitted petitioner to bid in municipal auction of his leased premises despite occupancy objections, retaining liberty to seek eviction only if he fails to bid successfully; disposed of the writ petition without notice to respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to participate in auction; liberty to retain possession if successful, otherwise eviction permitted.

Sri C R Dinesh Kumar Vs Town Municipal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5561 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5561 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C R DINESH KUMAR S/O RAMACHANDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TOWN, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMYA S.L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TOWN, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572214, REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PUBLIC AUCTION NOTICE DATED 25.02.2023 IN NO.NUM.PU.CHI.PAM.SHA.CR/05/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-J IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER SHOP OLD NO.4 NEW NO.14 TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5561 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In view of the proposed Order to be passed, notice to

¶21

respondent to be dispensed with.

¶22

This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

(i) Issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Public Auction Notice dated 25.02.2023 in No.Num.Pu.Chi.Pam.Sha.CR/05/202223 issued by the respondent marked at Annexure-J in so far as it relates to petitioner Shop old No-4 New No.14 to the writ petition.

¶24

(ii) Issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notices in No.Num.Pu.Chi.Pam.Sha.CR/05/2022-23 dated 21.02.2023 issued by the respondent marked at Annexure-H to the writ petition.

¶25

(iii) Issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notices in No.Num.Pu.Chi.Pam.Sha.CR/06/2022-23 dated 02.03.2023 issued by the respondent marked at Annexure-H1 to the writ petition.

¶26

(iv) Issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notices in No.Num.Pu.Chi.Pam.Sha.CR/06/2022-23 dated 04.03.2023 issued by the respondent marked at Annexure-H2 to the writ petition.

¶27

The contention of the petitioner is that a lease was entered into between the petitioner and respondent on

¶28

¶29

WP No. 5561 of 2023

¶30

23.02.2000, for a period of 4 years, which has been orally extended from time to time.

¶31

Learned counsel submits that without evicting the petitioner, the respondents are seeking to conduct an auction of the said premises in terms of Annexures J, H, H1 and H2, to the petitioner.

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner has been in occupation from the year 2000. The auction having been fixed, I am of the considered opinion that auction shall go on with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the said auction proceedings. In the event of the petitioner being the successful bidder of the auction, the possession of the petitioner can continue, in the event of the petitioner being unsuccessful, the respondents would be at liberty to take such action as permissible under law to evict the petitioner.

¶33

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶34

SNC

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

Sri C R Dinesh Kumar v. Town Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C R Dinesh Kumar v. Town Municipal Council

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

Smt Channajamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Ravindra. R. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Shankar v Hegde Vs Secretary

Smt Nirmala R Naidu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

M/S Sreenidhi Souharhda Sahakari Bank Niyamitha Vs Smt. Lalitha Renu S Y