Disposed

Sri. U. C. Siddalingeshwara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/23070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a license and an order denying an interim stay. The Single Judge found it fit to extend the Single Judge's own interim order and directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal within one month.

What did the court decide?

Interim order extended till disposal of appeal; Deputy Commissioner directed to dispose of appeal within one month.

Sri. U. C. Siddalingeshwara Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39579 WP No. 23070 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 23070 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. U. C. SIDDALINGESHWARA S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶9

SRI U C SANGAMESHWARA S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶10

SRI U C BASAVESHA S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE: BUSINESSMEN MARKET ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PULAKESHI A P.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AMBEDKAR VEEDHI REVENUE DEPARTMENT BANGALORE-560001

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:39579 WP No. 23070 of 2024

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶20

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SAGAR TOWN MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 101

¶21

SRI B C MALLIKARJUNA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS BUSINESSMEN R/O MARKET ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 R3 SERVED SRI. VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LICENSE IN LICENSE NO. SGR-BL-1372022-23 DTD. 10.11.2022 VIDE ANNX-J ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN FAVOUR OF THE R-4 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 15.07.2024 PASSED IN CASE NO. JNAKO(2).CC/02/2024-25 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-M.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39579 WP No. 23070 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner filed this writ petition, wherein the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner has granted an interim order. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner declined to extend the interim order. Hence, this writ petition.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner initially granted an interim stay, but subsequently refused to extend the interim order. He submits that respondent No. 4, taking undue advantage of the non-extension of the interim order, is trying to construct a building. He submits that the interim order

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:39579 WP No. 23070 of 2024

¶34

granted by the Deputy Commissioner may be extended, till the disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶35

Per contra, learned Senior counsel for

¶36

respondent No.4 submits that direction be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Hence, on these grounds, he prays 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 filed an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner initially granted an interim order, and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner did not extend the interim order. This Court, vide order dated 28.08.2024, granted an interim order. From the perusal of the impugned order, respondent No.2 has not assigned

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39579 WP No. 23070 of 2024

¶41

any reason for not extending the interim order. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the parties, the interim order granted by respondent No.2 is extended till the disposal of the appeal. No injustice would cause to the parties. However, respondent No.2 can be directed to

¶42

dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶43

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶44

Interim order granted earlier by respondent

¶45

No.2 is extended, till the disposal of the appeal.

¶46

Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal, within the period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶48

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶49

SSB

Sri. U. C. Siddalingeshwara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. U. C. Siddalingeshwara v. State of Karnataka

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 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