IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2559 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. COFFEE BREAK GOVERNMENT PU COLLEGE (BOYS) 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETORS SHIVAKUMAR H.P.
S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA SIDDEGOWDA K.C.
S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH (BY SRI ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT PU COLLEGE FOR BOYS 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012 ... APPELLANT 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION SAMPIGE ROAD 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HILGOL, HCGP) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.15647/2018 (GM-RES) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the first respondent is not interested at present to evict the appellant from the canteen premises and the appellant will be allowed to run the canteen until another contractor is appointed after conducting a fresh tender process. He further states that in the fresh tender process, it will be open for the appellant to participate in the same. We accepted the said statements.
2. Thus, so long as a new contractor is not appointed to run the canteen, the appellant cannot be evicted from the premises. If, at all, the respondents want to evict the appellant, they will have to initiate an action in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be modified.
3. Accordingly, the present appeal and the writ petition stands disposed of by passing the following order:
(i) The appellant will be entitled to continue to run the canteen till a new contractor is appointed to run the same after following tender process;
(ii) It will be open for the appellant to participate in the tender process;
(iii) In view of the statement made by the respondents, the impugned memorandum dated 9th April 2018 which is in challenge in the writ petition cannot be implemented. After a new contractor is appointed, if the appellant does not vacate, the respondents will have to adopt a fresh proceedings to evict the appellant;
(iv) There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN