Disposed

M R Paramashivaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2023WP/6114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking immediate possession and execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement was dismissed on preliminary grounds for non-maintainability due to the absence of a prior representation or demand. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court after a proper representation is submitted and considered by the respondent within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit a representation within 2 weeks; respondent to consider it and pass appropriate orders within 6 weeks thereafter.

M R Paramashivaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6114 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6114 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M.R.PARAMASHIVAIAH, EX-SERVICEMAN, S/O LATE RENUKACHARYA M.S., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, SHIVA NILAYA, I FLOOR, LAKE VIEW ROAD, BACHAPAN SCHOOL, DODDANEKKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SARASWATHI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶15

RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,

¶16

9^TH FLOOR, E AND F BLOCK, CAUVERY BHAVAN,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 6114 of 2022

¶19

KHB COMPLEX, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶20

GENERAL MANAGER (PI),

¶21

(PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION), RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., 9^TH FLOOR, E AND F BLOCK, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KHB COMPLEX, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1; SMT.SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT OR ORDER THE R-3 TO GIVE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX - B DATED 26.03.2012 AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayer:

¶29

a. Issue Writ of Mandamus direct or order the 3rd Respondent to give immediate possession to the Petitioner vide ANNEXURE-B, dated 26-03-2022.

¶30

b. Issue Writ of Mandamus direct or order the 3rd Respondent execute the registered Lease-cum-saleagreement vide ANNEXURE-F dated 09-05-2019.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 6114 of 2022

¶33

c. Pass such other orders or directions to the Respondents as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Smt. Shilpa Rani would submit that no representation in regard

¶35

to the grievance as is urged in the petition is submitted to respondent No.3, for it to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition without submitting a representation would not be maintainable to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus.

¶36

In the absence of any demand made before the respondents, the writ petition would not be maintainable, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of the SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LIMITED AND

¶37

OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA¹ , wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

¶38

“24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the

¶39

1 (1974) 2 SCC 630

¶40

¶41

WP No. 6114 of 2022

¶42

High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 13, p. 106):

¶43

“As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.”

¶44

The writ petition is disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such representation is submitted within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, respondent No.3 would consider the same and pass

¶45

¶46

WP No. 6114 of 2022

¶47

appropriate orders within 6 weeks thereafter, in accordance with law.

¶48

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands

¶49

disposed.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

M R Paramashivaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M R Paramashivaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms M.N. Kalavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S N Muralidhar Vs the Authorised Officer

M. K. Dandeker & Co. Vs Mysore Sales International Ltd.

Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Sri Diwakara K Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Mangala Shenoy Vs Mr Vinayaka Shenoy v