Disposed¶29

Sri M v. Shankarappa v the Town Municipality

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2025WP/9386/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 9386 of 2020 (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka, N S Sanjay Gowda J., 04.02.2025 - withdrawal of temporary permission to run Nandini Milk Parlour; Town Municipality Malur endorsement dated 27.07.2020; no assured tenure for temporary permission; undertaking to hand over vacant possession within three months; direction to consider re-location at nearby place; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: petitioner to hand over vacant possession to the Municipal Council within three months with an affidavit of Undertaking; Municipal Council directed to consider re-locating the petitioner at a nearby place, the re-location to be completed within the said three months from receipt of a copy of the order; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶29

Sri M v Shankarappa Vs the Town Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure-A) issued by the Town Municipality Malur withdrawing the petitioner's permission to run the Nandini Milk Parlour can be quashed.

¶23

Court's answer

Since the petitioner was granted only temporary permission to run the Nandini Milk Parlour on 17.07.2020, he did not have an assured tenure.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The decision of the Municipal Council to withdraw the temporary permission granted cannot be found fault with.

¶25

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to hand over vacant possession to the Municipal Council within three months and to file an affidavit of Undertaking to that effect.ratio¶26
Taking into consideration that the petitioner ran the business for the past five years, the Municipal Council was directed to consider re-locating the petitioner in a nearby place so that he can continue his business as before.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the Town Municipality, Malur's endorsement dated 27.07.2020 withdrawing the permission granted to the petitioner to run a Nandini Milk Parlour. Held: the petitioner having been granted only temporary permission on 17.07.2020, he had no assured tenure, and the Municipal Council's decision to withdraw the temporary permission could not be found fault with. Petition disposed of, recording the petitioner's undertaking to hand over vacant possession within three months and directing the Municipal Council to consider re-locating the petitioner at a nearby place, given his five years of running the business, within the said period.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:4975 WP No. 9386 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 9386 OF 2020 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M V SHANKARAPPA

¶9

S/O D.PILLAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS R/AT NO.43, DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, MALUR 563 101, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE TOWN MUNICIPALITY MALUR-563 101 KOLAR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR.R.V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:4975 WP No. 9386 of 2020

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is challenging Annexure-A, an endorsement by which the permission that had been granted to him to run a Nandini Milk Parlour has been withdrawn.

¶24

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted temporary permission to run his Nandini Milk Parlour on 17.07.2020 and it is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner did not have an assured tenure.

¶25

The decision of the Municipal Council to withdraw the temporary permission granted cannot, therefore, be found fault with.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to hand over vacant possession to the Municipal Council within three months from today. He shall file an affidavit of Undertaking in this regard.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4975 WP No. 9386 of 2020

¶28

However, it is noticed that the petitioner has been running the business for the past five years. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has been running a business for the past half a decade, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the Municipal Council to consider re-locating the petitioner in a nearby place, so that he can continue his business as before.

¶29

The said re-location shall be undertaken and completed within a period of said three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶30

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶32

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Sri M v. Shankarappa v the Town Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M v. Shankarappa v the Town Municipality

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

Smt. Byamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Basavaraju Vs the Chief Officer

Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K Jayalakshmi Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

K B Nishat Alikhan Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Shri Mohan S N Vs State of Karnataka