Allowed

T M Chikkaramaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2023WP/57941/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a petrol pump operator against the Deputy Commissioner. The court restrained the authorities from cancelling the No Objection Certificate without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order was passed in a preliminary hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 is directed not to cancel the NOC dated 19.04.2005 without duly notifying the petitioner and affording an adequate opportunity to respond.

T M Chikkaramaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19712 WP No. 57941 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 57941 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T M CHIKKARAMAIAH S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶9

T C KUMATESH S/O T M CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF

¶11

2ND STAGE BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMAKURU

¶12

M/S APOORVA SERVICE STATION BANASHANKARI CIRCLE, TUMAKURU R/BY ITS PROPRIETOR J N MANJULA 2ND STAGE BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMAKURU

¶13

Digitally signed by NIRMALADEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR 572102

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMKUR 572102

¶19

THE TERRITORY MANAGER BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD DUPARC TRINITY, 7TH FLOOR,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:19712 WP No. 57941 of 2016

¶22

17, M G ROAD BENGALURU - 560001

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT M C NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 SRI MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI N J KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO CANCEL THE NOC [ANENXURE-A] DTD 19.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE R-1 WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri Rajendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Smt M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA for Respondent No.1, Sri Mahesh, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶29

The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition

¶30

seeking for the following reliefs:

¶31

" (a) a writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondents not to cancel the NOC (Annexure-A) dated 19.04.2005 issued by the respondent No.1, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners.

¶32

(b) pass any other or such further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:19712 WP No. 57941 of 2016

¶34

¶35

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has issued a No Objection Certificate dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure-A to the Writ Petition) pursuant to which he is running a Petrol pump in the petition schedule property since 2005. That pursuant to a complaint dated 11.8.2016 lodged by a third party to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, the third Respondent issued notice dated 1.9.2016 (Annexure-D to the Writ Petition) calling upon the Petitioner to respond to the same. A copy of the complaint dated 11.8.2016 is also enclosed along with the said notice. The Petitioner, vide reply dated 3.9.2016 (Annexure-E to the Writ Petition) has responded to the said notice. Apprehending that the first Respondent may cancel the No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'NOC') granted in his favour, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶36

This Court, vide interim order dated 10.11.2016 restrained the Respondents from cancelling the NOC.

¶37

It is forthcoming from the averments made in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner having running the Petrol pump since 2005. Hence any action that may be taken to cancel the

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:19712 WP No. 57941 of 2016

¶39

¶40

NOC granted in his favour would require to be done after duly notifying him and affording an adequate opportunity to respond, in accordance with law. Hence, the relief sought in the Writ Petition is liable to be granted.

¶41

Hence, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Writ Petition is allowed;

¶44

ii. Respondent No.1 is directed not to cancel the NOC dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure-A to the Writ Petition) without duly notifying the petitioner and without affording an adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to respond to the same, in accordance with law.

¶45

iii. It is made clear that, if Respondent No.1 intends to initiate any action against the Petitioner, the same is required to be done in accordance with law.

¶46

No costs.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

T M Chikkaramaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T M Chikkaramaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Shashikanth B Jogi Vs Municipal Commissioner

K Narasimha Kini Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B. Shankar Deve Gowda Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Pragathi Angavikalara Vs the Managing Director

Vst Tillers Tractors Limited Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

N. Vishwanath Vs Chief Executive Officer