Allowed¶41

Sree Srikanteshwara Multipurpose v. Mysore Palace Board

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2025WP/12119/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conditional quashing of vacation/eviction order; Mysore Palace Board; lease deeds of 16.11.2013 and 02.08.2014 near Mysore Palace; alleged non-supply of equipments under lease agreement; Sections 14 and 18 invoked; Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act registration; writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; three-month cure period for installation of equipments; single-judge decision of Justice Suraj Govindaraj; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued; the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Director, Mysore Palace Board (Annexure-K) quashed, subject to the petitioner installing the listed equipments within three months, failing which the respondents are at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law. ¶41

Sree Srikanteshwara Multipurpose Vs Mysore Palace… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order bearing No.KaNiA/MPB/AaaVi/2015-16/402 dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Director, Mysore Palace Board (Annexure-K), calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises allotted to it, ought to be set aside by way of a writ of certiorari.

¶24

Court's answer

In view of the respondents' submission that the petitioner could continue to use the premises if the necessary equipments were provided within three months, the writ petition is allowed.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

A certiorari is issued and the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Director, Mysore Palace Board vide Annexure-K is quashed, subject to the petitioner installing the equipments, a list whereof was provided to the petitioner the same day, within a period of three months.

¶41

Key takeaways

If the said equipments are not installed within three months, the respondents are at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), Writ Petition No. 12119 of 2016 (GM-RES), decided 12.03.2025: A multipurpose co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, holding premises near Mysore Palace under lease deeds dated 16.11.2013 and 02.08.2014, challenged an order dated 29.02.2016 of the Director, Mysore Palace Board (Annexure-K) calling upon it to vacate on the ground that the premises were required for certain other purposes, the Board contending in objections that the petitioner had failed to supply equipments stipulated under the lease agreement and had acted under Sections 14 and 18 thereof. On the respondents' submission that the petitioner could continue to use the premises if the necessary equipments were provided within three months, the Court held the Annexure-K order would not survive: the writ petition was allowed and a certiorari issued quashing the order, subject to the petitioner installing the equipments (a list whereof was supplied the same day) within three months, failing which the respondents stood at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:10418 WP No. 12119 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12119 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SREE SRIKANTESHWARA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO. 14, VISHVESHWARAIAH BUILDING, K.R.CIRCLE, MYSORE – 570 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M , ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MYSORE PALACE BOARD MYSORE PALACE, MYSORE – 570 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶11

DIRECTOR OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MYSORE PALACE ROAD MYSORE – 570 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MYSORE PALACE ROAD MYSORE – 570 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 – R3)

¶16

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR, MYSORE PALACE BOARD, R-2 AT ANNEX-K.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:10418 WP No. 12119 of 2016

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for following

¶23

reliefs:

¶24

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction setting aside the Order bearing No.KaNiA/MPB/AaaVi/2015-16/402 dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Director, Mysore Palace Board, the second respondent herein (Annexure-K);

¶25

ii. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just including the costs of this petition.

¶26

The petitioner is a multipurpose co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act constituted in the year 1963 with an object of setting up of value price shops, e-stamping outlet, lending loans to its members for the purpose of promoting the financial, social and cultural activities to be taken up by its members etc.

¶27

The first respondent is a statutory Board, constituted under the Provisions of the Mysore Palace (Acquisition

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10418 WP No. 12119 of 2016

¶29

and Transfer Act, 1998). The Board of trustees of the first respondent consists of the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka as its Chairman, Secretary-Finance Department, Secretary-Department of Law, SecretaryPublic Works Department, Secretary-Muzrai Institutions and other members and manages the Mysore Palace. The 2^nd respondent is the Director appointed to facilitate better administration of the Officer of the Executive Officer.

¶30

The 1^st respondent allotted a premises to the petitioner in the vicinity of the Mysore palace. The petitioner though commenced usage of the premises in pursuance of the lease deed executed on 16.11.2013, certain conditions being left out in the said lease deed. Hence, another lease deed was executed on 02.08.2014. The petitioner continued to render his services in respect thereto.

¶31

On 29.02.2016, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner, served on 01.03.2016 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground that the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:10418 WP No. 12119 of 2016

¶34

premises was required for certain other purposes, it is challenging the same petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Notice having been issued, objections have been filed and it is contended in the said objections that in terms of lease agreement, the petitioner was required to provide certain equipments. The same not having been provided, the palace-Board has exercised its power under Sections 14 and 18 thereof and called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises.

¶36

When the matter was taken up on an earlier occasion, on enquiry as to whether the petitioner has to vacate the premises if the said equipments are provided, the learned counsel for the respondents sought time to obtain instruction and make his submission. Today a submission has been made that if the necessary equipments are provided to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, the petitioner could continue to use the premises. The said submission of the respondents answers the grievances of the petitioner. In view of the said submissions, the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10418 WP No. 12119 of 2016

¶38

the Director, Mysore Palace Board, vide Annexure-K would not survive for consideration. As such, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Director, Mysore Palace Board, vide Annexure-K is quashed subject to the petitioner installing the equipments a list thereof is provided to the petitioner today, within a period of three months from today. If the said equipments are not installed within three months, then the respondents are at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

JS List No.: 1 Sl. No.: 28

Sree Srikanteshwara Multipurpose v. Mysore Palace Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Srikanteshwara Multipurpose v. Mysore Palace Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Additional Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

H R Shantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Top Gains Minerals Macao Commercial Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ji Hazoor Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sreejith Vijayan Sreekumari Vs Union of India

Sri. Lakshmi Jeweller Vs the Authorized Officer