Disposed

Sri Ayaz v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/16969/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Meat stall operators sought mandamus directing the Grama Panchayath to consider their representations for renewal of trade licences. The Panchayath undertook to consider the representations; disputed questions of fact were noted. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representations after hearing, within two months, with interim protection against precipitating the matte

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Ayaz Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39442 WP No. 16969 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 16969 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. AYAZ, S/O AREEF, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SUNTIKOPPA, 2ND BLOCK, SOMAVARPETE TALUK,, ULUGULLI, KODAGAU - 571237,

¶8

SRI. FAYAZ, S/O RASHEED, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT SUNTIKOPPA, 2ND BLOCK, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, ULUGULLI, KODAGAU - 571237,

¶9

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. AZEEZ .H, S/O HAMSA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT VISHWANATHA RAI COLONY, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, ULUGULLI, KODAGAU -571237,

¶11

SRI. DILIP .C, S/O CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT SUNTIKOPPA, 2ND BLOCK, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, ULUGULLI, KODAGAU- 571237,

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39442 WP No. 16969 of 2024

¶13

SRI. ISMAIL M.S., S/O SHAREEF M.S., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT PAPRANDA BADAVANE, SUNTIKOPPA, 2ND BLOCK, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, ULUGULLI, KODAGAU- 571237.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE -560001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶18

GRAMA PANCHAYATH SHUNTIKOPPA VILLAGE, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT- 571253, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶19

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶20

ZILLA PANCHYATH KODAGU, KODAGU ZILLA PANCHAYAT, FORT, MADIKERI -571201 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶21

SOMWARPETE TALUK PANCHAYAT, KODAGU DISTRICT, CLUB ROAD, NEAR KAVERI CIRCLE, SOMWARPET- 571236, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39442 WP No. 16969 of 2024

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA AGA FOR R1, SRI. K.A.ARYA FOR CHARAN KUMAR.K.V. FOR R2, SD FOR R3 & R4.)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO MANDAMUS DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULED PREMISES FOR BUSINESS OF RUNNING MEAT / CHICKEN / FISH STALL VIDE ANNEXURE-B, B1, B2, B3 AND B4 ALL ARE DATED 06.03.2024 AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE SUITABLE ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners filed this writ mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to consider the annexure B to B4 and pass suitable orders.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioners are running meat stalls (chicken/fish/mutton) and obtained

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39442 WP No. 16969 of 2024

¶32

trade license for the year 2023-2024, the said license going to expire on 31.03.2024. The petitioners submitted an application for renewal of trade license and paid the license fee. It is contended that, the respondent No.2 has passed a resolution on 10.01.2024 to increase the license fee. The tender was to be called on 14.02.2024. The petitioner had objected to the same. The petitioners have submitted a representation vide annexure B to B4 dated 06.03.2024. The respondent No.2 demanding excess license fee from the petitioners which is not supported by any rule or law. The respondent No.2 issued demand notice and the same was challenged in WP.No. 4170/2023. It is contended that, the respondent No.2 had not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner have submitted an application for renewal of

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39442 WP No. 16969 of 2024

¶36

trade license for the year 2024-2025, but the respondent No.2 has not passed any order on the said application. Hence, he submit that direction be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation vide annexure B to B4 and pass appropriate order.

¶37

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, the respondent No.2 has not issued any trade license to the petitioners as alleged in the writ petition. Hence, question of considering an application for renewal of the trade license would not arise. It is further submits that, if reasonable time is granted to the respondent No.2, respondent No.2 will consider the representations vide annexure B to B4 in accordance with the law.

¶38

Perused the records and considered.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are running the meat shop after obtaining necessary permission, the said fact has been denied by the respondent No.2, stating that the respondent No.2 has not issued any trade license to the petitioners. It is the case of

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39442 WP No. 16969 of 2024

¶41

the petitioner that, the petitioner has deposited the license fee of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that it is a bid amount and it is not a trade license fee. There is disputed question of fact involved in the writ petition. However, petitioners have sought mandamus to consider the representation.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the respondent No.2 will consider the representation. In view of the same nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.

¶43

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Directed the respondent No.2 to consider the representations vide annexure - B to B4, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners as well as impleading applicant and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:39442 WP No. 16969 of 2024

¶48

In view of the disposal of writ petition I.A.1,2,

¶49

3/2024 does not survive for consideration.

¶50

Respondent No.2 directed not to precipitate the

¶51

matter till the disposal of representation.

¶52

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶53

SRK

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri Ayaz v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Ayaz v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sapthagiri Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Shantha Veerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Eshwara Engineers Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Hussain Shariff Vs the Commissioner

Mr. Ahmed Rafiq Vs the Town Municipality

Sri Honnesh Gowda B.R. Alias Yajman Honnesh Gowda B.R. Vs the Chief Executive Officer