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.3892 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
THE DIVYAJYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA CHIKKANNA LAYOUT NELAMANGALA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 560 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.M.MUNINARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI RAVISHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE M.S.M.E., KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT V.V.TOWER BANGALORE – 560 001 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE BANGALORE (RURAL) DISTRICT 1ST CROSS WOC ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 010 (BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ---
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.39278/2018 (GM-RES) DATED 25.09.2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant has impugned the order dated 25th September 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge for challenging the notices issued under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the said Act of 1974’). The impugned order records that when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocate produced a copy of the order passed under Section 5(1) of the said Act of 1974 dated 28th August 2019 which is an order of eviction passed against the appellant. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, disposed of the petition by the impugned order by observing that the remedy of an appeal is available against the said order. Even while disposing of the petition, the learned Single Judge apart from keeping open the remedy of an appeal, has directed the competent authority to consider the representation made by the appellant.
3. The challenge, in substance, in the writ petition was to initiation of the proceedings for eviction. Now, the proceedings have been culminated into an order of eviction. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that the appellant has also preferred an appeal against the said order. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain this appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of. All contentions which are raised in the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge can be also raised by the appellant before the Appellate Authority.
The pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB