Dismissed

Umesh S/O Shivaputrappa Angadi v. Chief Managing Director

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024WP/103567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of orders regarding a sweet shop licence was dismissed. The Court held the petition was based on fraud due to suppression of a prior rejection order, rendering the first prayer infructuous and refusing relief on the second.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner punished with Rs.10,000 cost and liberty granted to respondent authority to proceed for eviction and penalty.

Umesh S/O Shivaputrappa Angadi Vs Chief… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13358 WP No. 103567 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103567 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

UMESH S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BEHIND VENKATESH TAILORS, NEAR ANNIGERI GARDEN EXTENSION AREA, MASARI, GADAG-582101, TQ: DIST: GADAG.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, HEAD OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶14

DIVISION CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, HEAD OFFICE, GADAG, DIVISION GADAG-582101.

¶15

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

DEEPA KISHOR MEDISHETTI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASALIGUNDI AT GARDEN LAND-591218, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; R3-SERVED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NWKRTC, GADAG BEARING NO. VAKARASA/GAVI/SANCHARA/VANIJYA/346/2022 DATED 21-05-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13358 WP No. 103567 of 2024

¶21

RESPONDENT NO.2 DIVISIONAL MANGER, NWKRTC, GADAG BEARING VAKARASA/GAVI/SO/VANIJYA:671/24-25, DATED 07-062024 AT ANNEXURE-K AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RE-CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF PETITIONER AND ACCORDINGLY RENEW THE CONTRACT AND ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS OF SWEET SHOP AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶25

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The present writ petition is filed praying this

¶27

Court to quash the impugned letter issued by respondent No.2 dated 21.05.2022 vide Annexure-H under which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of two years. The counsel for respondents submits that the said period is over and hence, the first prayer becomes infructuous. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that period i.e., from 31.05.2022 to 30.05.2024 has already been elapsed. Hence, the first prayer has become infructuous.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13358 WP No. 103567 of 2024

¶29

The second prayer is for quashing the

¶30

impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 0706-2024 vide Annexure-K. In Annexure-K, the respondent has asked the petitioner to hand over the premises on or before 30.06.2024.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given representation as per Annexure-E before the expiry of three years and contend that in the notification itself there is a provision for extension of another three years if no default and the work is satisfactory subject to enhancement of rent of 15% and every year enhancing the same for 10%. In spite of the said provision, the respondent has not renewed the same.

¶32

The counsel for respondent would vehemently contend that when the petitioner obtained permission in respect of the stall No.11, he committed default and hence he was blacklisted and when the representation was given in terms of Annexure-E, reply was also given in terms of Annexure-R2 stating that as the petitioner is blacklisted,

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13358 WP No. 103567 of 2024

¶34

the licence cannot be renewed. The counsel would also submit that Annexure-R2 is suppressed before this Court while seeking the interim order and also submit that the premises is already allotted in favour of respondent No.3 and question of renewal does not arise. The counsel would submit that in terms of Class 39 of Annexure-R1, if the premises is not vacated as directed by the respondentauthority, they are bound to pay double the license fee what he was paying on the date of expiry of the term of license or termination of agreement as penalty without prejudice to the right of licensor to evict the licensee from the premises, the respondent-authority can proceed in terms of Class 39 of Annexure-R1 in case of petitioner not vacating the premises.

¶35

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and having perused the material on record, no doubt a representation was given by the petitioner as per Annexure-E for renewal of licence and the respondent

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13358 WP No. 103567 of 2024

¶37

Nos.1 and 2 have taken decision in terms of Annexure-R2 that the same cannot be extended since the petitioner has been blacklisted. The material on record also discloses that the petitioner has suppressed the document of AnnexureR2 that his request already been rejected on 13.02.2024 itself. However, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 25.06.2024 suppressing Annexure-R2 i.e., after the rejection of his representation and obtained the interim order by this Court. Hence, the same is nothing but played fraud on the Court for obtaining an interim order. When the petitioner approaches the Court suppressing the decision of the respondent No.2 in terms of Annexure-R2, I do not find any ground to grant the relief as sought in respect of Annexure-K and hence question of giving any direction to the respondentauthority to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and accordingly renew the contract does not arise as already decision is taken in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-R2. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and has not made out any

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13358 WP No. 103567 of 2024

¶39

ground either to quash or to give any directions. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶41

the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/payable within two weeks, if not paid, registry is directed recover the same in accordance with law.

¶44

The respondent-authority is at liberty to proceed in accordance with Clause 39 of Annexure-R1 against the petitioner as he has suppressed Annexure-R2 and obtained the interim order before this Court by playing fraud on the Court.

¶45

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶46

NAA CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Umesh S/O Shivaputrappa Angadi v. Chief Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh S/O Shivaputrappa Angadi v. Chief Managing Director

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

Ashpak Ahmad Aliyas Dilshad S/O Ibrahim Ansari Vs the Chief Executive Officer

The Deputy General Manager Vs Chandrashekharayya Shastri S/O Somashekharayya Shastri

Ganesh Soaps and Detergents Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Khaleel Ahamad Vs Dr. Raviprasad Challa

Abdulmunaf S/O Abdulrazak Contractor Vs Smt. Ratnavva W/O Bharmappa Gouli

Abp Girish Gouda S/O Late Kotragouda Vs Sri.Mallikarjunappa S/O Ereseemi Shanthappa