Allowed

N.S. Jayaprakash, v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/22027/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Gram Panchayath endorsement refusing to renew his trade license on the ground of a pending enquiry. The court held pendency of enquiry irrelevant to renewal and set aside the endorsement, directing consideration of the renewal application if requirements are fulfilled.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 21/05/2024 quashed; respondent directed to consider renewal application provided petitioner fulfils requirements.

N.S. Jayaprakash, Vs the Panchayath Development… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39577 WP No. 22027 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 22027 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

N.S. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT NITTUR VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572126

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K R SATHISH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NITTUR GRAM PANCHAYATH NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572126

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT IN NO. GRA.PAN.NI.HIN.SAM.8/2024-25 DATED 21/05/2024 ISSUED BY THE R3 MARKED AT ANN-P TO THE WRIT PETITION; DIRECT THE R3 TO RENEW THE TRADE LICENSE IN RESPECT OF THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39577 WP No. 22027 of 2024

¶19

PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS EARLIER ISSUED AT ANN-N1 DATED 02/05/2023.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 21.05.2024 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-P and also sought for mandamus directing the respondent to renew the Trade License in respect of the property of the petitioner which was earlier issued at Anneuxre-N1 dated 02.05.2023.

¶24

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶25

The property bearing Sy.No.28/1 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas is an agricultural land which jointly belongs to Sri N.Srinivas Rao, N.R.Subbarao, N.R.Gundurao. The said persons applied for conversion of land to the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the official memorandum was issued on 22.04.2000 converting the land from agricultural

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39577 WP No. 22027 of 2024

¶27

use to non-agricultural purpose. The petitioner purchased the properties from the aforesaid persons under the registered sale deed. After purchasing the said properties, the petitioner obtained the permission from the Gram Panchayath, the petitioner constructed a building and thereafter, started business in the said premises obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. Thereafter, respondent No.3 started interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition property. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.582/2022 on the file of Additional Civil Judge, JMFC, Gubbi. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 seeking an order of temporary injunction. The said application was rejected. The petitioner aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.1, preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.02.2024 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 07.02.2024. Meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal of trade license. The respondent issued an endorsement vide Annexure-P stating that an

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:39577 WP No. 22027 of 2024

¶30

enquiry against the petitioner and the during the pendency of the enquiry, the respondent declined to renew the trade license. Hence, this writ petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶32

also learned counsel for the respondent.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authority, constructed a commercial building and used commercial activity by obtaining a trade license from the respondent. Meanwhile, the respondent started interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, and the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.582/2022. He submits that there is an injunction order in favour of the petitioner, and the respondent has declined to renew the trade license entered, and the enquiry is pending. He submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the enquiry. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39577 WP No. 22027 of 2024

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶36

submits that an enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Hence, for the said reason, the respondent declined to renew the trade license. He further submits that the respondent is directed to renew the license, subject to the outcome of the enquiry and prayed to dispose of the writ petition.

¶37

Perused the records and considered the

¶38

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner had purchased the property in question under the registered sale deed and after obtaining a sanctioned plan from the concerned authority, constructed a commercial building, and thereafter, after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority, started boarding and lodging. Thereafter, the respondent started interfering into the peaceful possession, and he filed a suit in O.S. No. 582/2022, wherein the first Appellate Court has granted an injunction in M.A.No.2/2024 vide order dated

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39577 WP No. 22027 of 2024

¶41

07.02.2024. Meanwhile, the petitioner applied for renewal of a trade license. The respondent issued an endorsement vide Annexure-P, which discloses that an enquiry is pending against the petitioner. The pendency of enquiry has nothing to do with the renewal of the license. If the petitioner has fulfilled the requirements, the respondent is supposed to renew the trade license. The reasons assigned by the respondent in the impugned endorsement are incorrect.

¶42

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 21.05.2024 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-P is set aside.

¶46

iii. The respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:39577 WP No. 22027 of 2024

¶48

¶49

trade license, provided if the petitioner fulfills

¶50

the requirements.

¶51

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶52

SSB

N.S. Jayaprakash, v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S. Jayaprakash, v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ayaz Vs State of Karnataka

Gurujyothi Education Society Vs City Municipal Council, Hassan

Preethi Jayanth Vs Chamaiah

Sri B Siddappa Vs Sri Bandhari Siddappa

Eranna @ Pathaiah Vs Siddalingamma W/O Shivappa

Mr. Basant Goel Vs Mr. Yogesh Kumar. C