IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.56063-56075/2017 C/w.
WRIT PETITION Nos.56078-56080/2017 (GM-PP) IN W.P.Nos.56063-56075/2017: BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. K. BADARINARAYANA S/O LATE KRISHNA SHETY, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 2. SHRI. M.R.RAVISHANKAR S/O K RAMAIAH SHETTY, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 3. SHRI. K.V.RAVISHANKAR S/O K.S. VIJAYKUMAR, AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 4. SHRI. RAVISHANKAR S/O RAMAIAH SHETTY, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 5. SHRI. N.R.GOVINDA RAJU S/O G. RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 6. SHRI. K.N NARAYANA BABU S/O K.N.NAGARAJU SHETTY, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 7. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O H. VENKATACHALAIAH, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 8. SHRI. BANUPRAKASH S/O SHIVANNA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 9. SHRI. MAHAMMED KALEEM ULLA S/O ABDUL BARI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 10. SHRI. S. DWARAKIKRISHNA S/O S.A. SURYANARAYANA SHETTY, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 11. SHRI G.M. NAZEER AHAMMED S/O GHOUSE MOHIDDIN, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 12. SHRI MAHAMMED NOOR ULLA S/O ABDUL HAQ, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132 13. SHRI. SHOWKATH S/O ABDUL SAMAD, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIT-572 132. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MUNIRAJU V., ADV.) IN W.P.Nos.56078-56080/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. T.K.BADARINATH SHETTY S/O. TA TA KESHAVAIAH SHETTY AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: BUNINESS R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132 2. SHRI SHIVAPRAKASH ARADHYA S/O BASAVARADHYA AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132 3. SHRI TANVEER AHAMMED S/O ATHIK AHAMMED AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/AT DYUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MUNIRAJU V., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 101 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER MADHUGIRI TOWN UNICIPAL COUNCIL, TOWN HALL, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132 ... RESPONDENTS [COMMON] (BY SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DT.14.12.2017) W.P.Nos.56063-56075/2017 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTICES DTD:14.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE PETITIONERS, A COPY OF WHICH AS PER ANNEXURES-E TO R.
W.P.Nos.56078-56080/2017 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTICES DTD:14.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE PETITIONERS A COPY OF WHICH AS PER ANNEXURE-E TO G.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 and 2 and file memo of appearance in four weeks. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed, keeping in view the nature of consideration herein.
2. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the notices dated 14.11.2017 impugned at Annexures-‘E to ‘R’ and Annexures-‘E’ to ‘G’ respectively. The petitioners herein are in occupation of the premises belonging to the respondent No.3. Since, the present notices dated 14.11.2017 is issued to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to vacate from the premises, the petitioners are before this Court contending that such termination of the license is not justified and the notices of the present nature is not sustainable.
3. Though contentions in that regard is put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the very perusal of the notice dated 14.11.2017 issued to each of these petitioners would disclose that the respondent No.3 has intimated the petitioners that in the event of not vacating the premises, action would be initiated in terms of the provision contained in the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. The notices in any event can be replied by the petitioners, if they have objection to the same.
4. If that be the position, even if the action is initiated thereafter by the respondent No.3 under the said Act and any contention in defense thereof is to be put forth by the petitioners, the petitioners can only put forth the same before the Competent Authority and if such contention is not considered, the remedy of appeal is also available to the District Judge under the said Act.
5. Therefore, when such remedy is available to the petitioners, this Court is not required to entertain these petitions filed against the notices calling upon the petitioners to vacate from the premises. All contentions of the petitioners are left open to be urged before the appropriate forum.
In terms thereof, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST