Sri.Suprith Gowda H.R Vs the Managing Director

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.D. SURANA .,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) DIRECTION OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO CANCEL THE ORDERS DATED 04/09/2023 IN NO. SAM/KARAASAA/MAIVI/SAM/VAA/1838/23-24 ICANCELLATION OF LICENSE MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY R2 AND THE COMMUNICATION OF R2 DATED 12/09/2023 IN NO. SAM/KARAASAA/MAIVI/SAM/KAA/1959/23-24 TILL 22/12/2027

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E1 REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner, who is admittedly a licensee in respect of Commercial space belonging to respondent No.1-KSRTC is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶26

''(a) Issue an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to cancel the orders dated 04/09/2023 in No.Sam/KaRaaSaa/MaiVI/Sam/Vaa/1838/23-24 of cancellation of license marked at ANNEXURE-E Issued by 2nd respondent and the communication of 2nd respondent dated 12/09/2023 in No.Sam/KaRaaSaa/MaiVi/Sam/Kaa/1959/23-24 till 22/12/2027 marked at ANNEXURE-E1 rejecting the request of the petitioner.

¶27

(b) Issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with the business as per deed of license till 2027 as per Deed of license.

¶28

(c) Issue any order or orders as deems fit and proper including the cost of the proceedings.''

¶29

Learned counsel to the petitioner taking this Court

¶30

through the records extensively and also through the terms of

¶31

the license agreement produced at Annexure-A, vehemently submits that the issuance of notice at Annexures-E and E1 by

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the respondent-Authorities is one without reference to the terms of the license agreement. He submits that since there is a dispute with regard to interpretation of clause 45 providing for termination/cancellation of the license, in terms of Clause 46 of the said agreement, the matter ought to have been referred to the respondent No.1-Managing Director of the KSRTC. In furtherance to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner also drawing attention of this Court to a notice dated 10.05.2022 produced at Annexure-B1 points out that during the COVID-19 period, certain concession in the matter of payment of license fee was provided. However, apparently said relaxation was withdrawn. He submits that the said communication also reads that the concession that was given to the extent of Rs.3,36,602/- was sought to be recalled and petitioner was directed to pay the said money. Therefore he contends that if an opportunity is provided to the petitioner, he would present his case before the respondent No.1Managing Director in terms of clause 46 of the agreement for the limited purpose of calculation and adjustment of the license fee and the dues payable thereof.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

He further submits that since the premises subject matter falling under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1974') the respondent-Authorities ought to have initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1974 and respondents not having resorted to the same cannot seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises.

¶40

In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authority referring to order dated 01.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.2581/2015 C/w W.P.No.3740/2015 in the case of G. Raja Vs. State of Karnataka passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court submits that under identical fact situations of the matter, this Court referring to Section 63 of the Easements Act, 1882 at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 has come to the conclusion that in the admitted cases of license issued by the KSRTC, provisions of the Act, 1974 would not apply and that there is no requirement to institute any proceedings under the said provision. In support of said submission he also relies upon Order dated 11.01.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.6614/2001 , in the case of Managing Director and Another Vs. N.Rajarathnam to submit that

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, he submits that the contention urged by the petitioner requiring initiation of the proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 cannot be accepted.

¶45

As regards the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to clause 46 of the agreement, he submits that the petitioners who is invoking the discretionary relief of this Court had to come clean, in that he submits that the petitioner as on this date is due and liable to pay Rs.34,45,285/- from 28.08.2024. He also submits that this court by Order dated 15.12.2025 had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the respondentcorporation within two weeks from the said date which has also not been complied with. Therefore he submits petitioner not

¶46

having performed his part of the obligation is not entitled to the discretionary either. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶47

Heard and perused the records.

¶48

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was granted license to use certain portion of the

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

premises belonging to the respondent-Corporation in terms of the deed of license dated 23.12.2015 produced at Annexure-A. It appears in terms of said license, petitioner was required to pay quarterly license fee of Rs.4,17,680/- which included license fee, service tax and electricity charges. Non payment of the said dues resulted in respondent issuing as many as 63 notices. However, petitioner being aggrieved by the notice as per Annexures-E and E1 is before this Court.

¶53

In the light of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.01.2005 in the case of Managing Director and Another Vs. N. Rajarathnam as well as order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.06.2015 in

¶54

the case of G.Raja Vs. State and others, which is not disputed, the question of invocation of provisions of the Act, 1974 would not arise. Therefore, there is no requirement of adverting to the said issue.

¶55

The only other aspect requires consideration is the request made by the petitioner with reference to clause 46 of the license agreement which reads as under:

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

''46. Any disputes with regard to interpretation of the clauses of agreement or any differences between parties be referred to the Managing Director, KSRTC and any decision of the Managing Director, KSRTC is biding on both the parties.''

¶60

On a query by this Court regarding the scope of dispute to be referred in terms of Clause 46, counsel of the petitioner submits that given an opportunity, petitioner would only present his case with regard to calculation of the license fee payable as claimed as well as the relaxation which was accorded during the COVID-19 period. He submits for the said limited purpose the matter may be remitted to the respondent No.1-Managing Director.

¶61

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner is not entitled even for said relief as the petitioner is due and liable to pay Rs.34,45,285/-. That, despite the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by this Court directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- same has not been complied by the petitioner. Therefore, seeks for rejection of the said request for reference of the matter under Clause 46 of the agreement.

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

According to the respondent the outstanding amount on and from 28.03.2024 till date is Rs.34,45,285/-, which is disputed by the petitioner. Further, communication dated 10.05.2022 produced at Annexure-B1 at Page No.47, deals with according and withdrawing the concession during COVID-19 period. These two issues being disputed questions of fact requiring consideration at the hands of the respondentManaging Director. For this limited purpose of calculation of the amount paid or payable by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i). Petitioner shall make a representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order to the respondent No.1-Managing Director, only to the extent of dispute with regard to amount claimed by the respondent towards arrears of license fee.

¶68

(ii). Since this Court by Order dated 15.12.2025 had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-,

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:97 WP No. 22379 of 2023

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

which is not deposited till date, the representation as directed above shall be considered by the respondent-Managing Director subject to petitioner depositing the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with representation and if deposit so made, such representation shall be disposed of within a period of 30 days by passing appropriate order thereon.

¶73

(iii) Till disposal of the representation, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶74

(iv). It is made clear except to the aforesaid extent no other indulgence is shown in this writ petition.

¶75

(v). It is further made clear that the respondentAuthority shall have liberty to take such action as it deem fit after disposal of the representation as directed above.

¶76

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶77

RL

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri.Suprith Gowda H.R v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Suprith Gowda H.R v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kushappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Vs Pandappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Deceased by His Legal Heirs Smt Shekavva W/O Pandappa Nalavadi

Smt. Geetha Vs Sri. Yellappa

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Nyatha Reddy

Kumbara Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M.K.Putta Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka

Basareddy Vs State of Karnataka