Disposed¶33

Sri.M.K.Gopal v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2025WP/8087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 8087 of 2025 (EXCISE), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 02.04.2025 by Hon'ble Mr Justice B M Shyam Prasad. Petitioner M.K. Gopal challenged the Inspector of Excise, Nagamangala Zone's Letter No. EXE/NAMALA/KATTADA/1/2024-25 dated 24.01.2025 terminating the lease of his Nagamangala Town premises. The Court declined to interfere with the termination decision and observed that any remedy for breach of contractual terms lies in a properly instituted proceeding; the petition was disposed of. Counsel: Hareesh Kumar NT for petitioner; Manjunath B., AGA for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Neither ground advanced by the petitioner affords any reason to interfere with the fifth respondent's decision to terminate the lease. ¶33

Sri.M.K.Gopal Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8087 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.M.K.GOPAL S/O KRISHNEGOWDA,, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.2, T.B. EXTENTION, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DIST-571431

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HAREESH KUMAR NT., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT EXCISE M.S.BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD DEPARTMENT, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA-571431

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE, NGO COLONY, WILSON GARDEN, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571431

¶19

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, NAGAMANGALA ZONE, NAGAMANGALA TOWN MANDYA DIST-571431

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OR CANCEL THE LETTER NO. EXE/NAMALA/KATTADA/1/2024-25 DTD 24.01.2025 ISSUED BY R-5 VIDE ANNX-H BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WP OR IN ALTERNATE DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONTINUE THE LEASE PERIOD WITH PETITIONER, WHEREIN THE PRESENT OFFICE IS WORKING IN PROPERTY BEARING NO. 22, NEW PID NO. 21-512-67 OLD KATHA NO. 3010/2752/2004, SITUATED AT 2ND WARD, T.B. EXTENSION EASTERN SIDE, B.M.ROAD, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is the owner of the immovable property bearing No.22, New PID No.21-512-67 [Old Katha No.3010/2752/2004], II Ward, T.B.Extension Eastern Side, B.M.Road, Nagamangala Town, Mandya District, and the fifth respondent has taken this property on lease. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fifth respondent's Communication dated 24.01.2025 [ Annexure-H ] informing the petitioner that its office is constrained to terminate the lease because the premises are found insufficient and the rentals are higher.

¶28

Sri. N. T. Hareesh Kumar, the learned counsel

¶29

for the petitioner, submits that the fifth respondent may not terminate the lease during the subsistence of the lease period proposing to move to an alternate premises. The learned counsel emphasizes that the fifth respondent has failed to consider the representation filed for continuation of the lease. Sri. Manjunath B., the learned Additional

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025

¶32

Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances.

¶33

This Court must opine that neither grounds will afford any reason to interfere with the fifth respondent's decision, and this Court must observe that if the fifth respondent's decision to terminate the contract is contrary to the contractual terms, the petitioner must work out his remedies in a properly instituted proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶35

Sri.M.K.Gopal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M.K.Gopal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leo Joseph Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Mr.Akshay Bidari Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M/S Kapil Trading Co. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Himavardhana Naidu Alluri Vs the State of Karnataka

Uber India Systems Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Siddalingaiah Matapathi Vs the Managing Director