IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.2353 OF 2019 (LB-RES) Between:
M/s. Big Bazar (one of its format of the company M/s. Future Retail Ltd.
Regd. As per the provisions of Companies Act) Retail Store at Katha No.73 New Municipal No.13 B.M. Road, Hassan, Ward No.1 Hassan – 573201 Zonal Office at No.22, Sankey Road Opp. BDA Bangalore-560 020 Rep. by its authorised signatory Sri. N. N. Rajeshkumar Gupta. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Venkataramana K.S., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner City Municipal Council B.M. Road, Santhepet Circle Hassan – 573201 Hassan District.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer (V) CESK, City Sub-Division Santhepete, B.M. Road Hassan – 573201. ... Respondents (By Sri. M. A. Subramani, HCGP for R1; Sri. A. Ravishankar, Adv. for R2;
Sri. H. V. Devaraju, Adv. for R3) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the R-2 vide Annexure-F and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned HCGP Sri. M. A. Subramani, accepts notice for respondent No.1; learned counsel Sri. A. Ravishankar accepts notice for respondent No.2 and he is permitted to file his vakalath; and learned counsel Sri. H. V. Devaraju accepts notice for respondent No.3 and he is permitted to file his vakalath.
2. Petitioner claiming to be a tenant under one Sri. S. Venkataramu, has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2-Authority.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 points out that the said order had been challenged by the landlord in W.P.No.1674/2019, wherein, certain directions have been made and further, the landlord has executed an undertaking to remove the unauthorizedly constructed portion and in the said undertaking has also permitted the disconnection of power supply. As regards the prayer No. (a), said matter cannot be revisited in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.1674/2019 by order dated 11.01.2019.
4. The petitioner however, states that atleast as regards power connection some interim direction needs to be passed till the demolition of building is completed or during the period when the order has been kept in abeyance or stayed. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 with an appropriate request and the same can be considered by respondent No.3 looking into the facts and circumstances that are made out. This direction is issued as the petitioner states that till the stocks are removed which include perishable goods there must be power connection atleast for the limited period when the impugned order is kept in abeyance or stayed. However, without expressing any opinion, respondent No.3 is at liberty to consider such request.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SN/-