Quashed

Manju S/O Ramappa Shirahalli v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024WP/106504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner requiring petitioners to furnish details of collusion allegations regarding a proposed petrol pump. Court held that since a suit by petitioners against the same parties was already pending, the notice was unjustified and malice-tainted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 06.09.2024 issued by the respondent is quashed.

Manju S/O Ramappa Shirahalli Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17044 WP No. 106504 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 106504 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJU S/O RAMAPPA SHIRAHALLI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/AT: TILAVALLI, HANGAL-581 120.

¶10

RAJAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA KATTIMANI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: TILAVALLI, HANGAL-581 120.

¶11

3. DADAPEER

¶12

S/O MOHAMMADGOUS KABBUR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: TILAVALLI, HANGAL-581 120.

¶13

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

MAHABOOBALI MOHAMMADGOUS KOOSNOOR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: TILAVALLI, HANGAL-581 120.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE.)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI RD, DEVAGIRI KARNATAKA-581 110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.)

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17044 WP No. 106504 of 2024

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE NOTICE SENT BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 06.09.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D BEARING NO.DC-HAV-14014(16)/15/2024/-HAV_MAG-HAVERI-DC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶25

This petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the respondent vide Annexure-D. It is the contention of petitioners that they had initiated an original suit in O.S.No.110/2024 before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Hanagal, against one Kartik Suresh Yattinhalli and others, including the respondent to stop the construction of petrol pump as the same is being proposed to be constructed without proper procedure and permissions, violating the required rules and regulations of 100 meters within the residential school, which would be dangerous and hazardous to the children studying in the school. The said suit is pending adjudication. Notice has been issued to the defendants therein. The respondent herein is defendant No.6

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17044 WP No. 106504 of 2024

¶27

and the service of notice is complete and the defendants therein are placed exparte.

¶28

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that when the suit is pending adjudication, respondent has issued this notice calling upon the petitioners to furnish details of the allegations made of collusion against the respondent herein for the construction and putting up of the petrol pump. It is contended that the said notice is uncalled for, erroneous and is illegal and seeks to quash the same. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has no manner of right to issue notice to the petitioners and the suit is already filed against him with regard to collusion and this is initiated only with an intention to scare and threaten the petitioners from pursuing the suit in the nature of a representative capacity. Hence the present petition challenging the said notice.

¶29

3. Learned AGA representing the respondent contends that the Annexure-D is only a notice issued to the petitioners to show cause as to what are all the collusions or allegations made and it is for the petitioners to answer to the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17044 WP No. 106504 of 2024

¶31

said notice and produce relevant materials, which would facilitate the respondent to pass suitable orders, if any. Hence he sustains the impugned notice issued by the respondent.

¶32

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent.

¶33

5. When the petitioners have already instituted a suit against private parties and the respondent herein making several allegations of collusion and fraud and trying to assist the persons for establishment of the petrol pump in the locality where the school is situated. It may not be appropriate for the respondent herein to issue a notice asking for the details of allegations made and if at all there is any grievance or requirement, the same can be sought by the respondent in the suit filed by the petitioners. Initiation of such notice does not stem out from any act or the rules. Under the circumstances, the issuance of notice is tainted with malice and stink vengeance and apparently it appears that it is issued only to counter the filing of the suit by the petitioners. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17044 WP No. 106504 of 2024

¶35

opinion that the notice so issued by the respondent is not emanating from any statute or the rules. Hence, such notice cannot be sustained when already a suit is pending against the respondent. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶38

(ii) The impugned notice dated 06.09.2024 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed.

¶39

(iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter pending before the trial Court.

¶40

(iv) Parties are at liberty to agitate their respective case

¶41

before the trial Court in the manner known to law.

¶42

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶43

MRK-PARA 1 AND 2. CKK-PARA 3 TO END. CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54

Manju S/O Ramappa Shirahalli v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju S/O Ramappa Shirahalli 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

Sri.M.S.Raghu S/O M. Swamynathan Vs the Commissioner City Municipal

Laxman S/O Shankar Dixit Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Munaf @ Babu S/O Allabaksha Vs State of Karnataka

J K Cement Works, Muddapur Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Fakeerappa S/O Chayappa Boodihal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sr Venkappa S/O Veerabhadrappa Ugarkod Vs the State of Karnataka