IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.20357/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. BEERAMMA G.M.
W/O. LATE M.R.DIXIT GOWDA VOLGA JUICE CENTRE K.C.GENERAL HOSPITAL PREMISES MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE STATE OF KARNATAKA ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT K.C.GENERAL HOSPITAL MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.V.GIRI KUMAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 16.03.2019 AT ANNEXURE-G AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO R.3 AND R.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE ON 18.3.2019 VIDE ANN-H AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE IN THE VACANT SPACE AVAILABLE ON THE WESTERN SIDE VACANT UNSSED LAND AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with the present petition because the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner from a shop premises pursuant to the communication dated 16.03.2019 as per Annexure-G.
2. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that he has been instructed to submit that the petitioner is in an unauthorised occupation of a public property, but the petitioner will be evicted after due process of law. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the writ petition could be disposed of in light of these submissions with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings in a manner known to law to secure possession of the premises which is unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner.
3. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition indeed could be disposed of with such liberty to the respondents, but the petitioner is not in the unauthorized occupation of the premises.
4. In light of these submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the petition could be disposed of without expressing any opinion on the nature of the petitioner’s possession of the subject property reserving liberty to the authorities to seek possession of the subject premises from the petitioner in the manner known to law and with further liberty to the petitioner to contest such proceedings on all grounds. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE LB