IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.4555 OF 2015 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KALPANA WIFE OF M.N CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RUNNING A BAKERY SHOP RESIDING AT SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD CHANNAGIRI POST AND TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213.
2. SMT. ZARINA JONH WIFE OF MOHOAMMED SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NEW SYDER MAHAL RUNNING FRUITS SHOP CHANNAGIRI POST AND TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213.
3. SMT. NAGARATHNA DAUGHTER OF RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RUNNING A KIRANI SHOP CARE OF MANJUNATH K S PWD ROAD CHANNAGIRI POST AND TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213.
4. SRI. T. M SIDDALINGAPPA SON OF KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RUNNING A FLOWER SHOP CARE OF N P BHOJRAJ NAYAKARA BEEDHI CHANNAGIRI POST AND TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213.
(BY SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI SHIVAKUMAR SON OF THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANNAGIRI DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT CHANNAGIRI DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213.
... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. R ANITHA, HCGP. FOR RESPONDENT No.2 SRI. S MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.3 RESPONDENT No.1 IS SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 10500/2011 DATED 14/09/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10500 of 2011, by which the writ petition was disposed off with certain directions, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 therein have preferred this appeal.
2. The petitioner, who claims to be a former member of Town Panchayath, Channagiri, filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner, communication dated 11.02.2010 along with the resolution dated 23.11.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent – Town Panchayath. Further the petitioner also sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to comply with the eviction order and evict the existing license holders from the shop in question and put the said shops to public auction. The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent – Town Panchyat without complying with the due process of law and putting the property to public auction for letting out the shops, followed the procedure of negotiating with the persons already in possession and let out to them, even though eviction orders were passed against them under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’). Initially writ petition was filed by making respondents 1 and 2 as party to the writ petition. Subsequently, respondent Nos.3 to 7 got impleaded themselves as respondents.
3. The 2nd respondent – Town Panchayath filed its objections contending that as per circular dated 26.10.2009 licenses were renewed in respect of the existing leases. The Town Panchayath also passed resolution to continue the existing lease in respect of private respondents. In the subsequent meeting, resolution to auction the shops belonging to 2nd respondent was supported by eight members and thirteen members remained absent, as such it is stated that it proceeded to take action in accordance with the circular dated 26.09.2009. Taking note of the rival contentions the learned Single Judge by his reasoned order directed the 2nd respondent to put the shops in question for public auction including the shops occupied by respondent Nos.3 to 7 and permitted them to participate in the said auction. Further observed that if it is found that any other person, other than respondent Nos.3 to 7 offered more than the offer, presently made by respondent Nos.3 to 7 or is more than the price of the lease/rentals already agreed under the agreement and in those circumstances, cancellation of agreement executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 would arise. On the other hand, if no other person responds to the auction notice or if the amount offered by them is less than the amount offered by respondent Nos.3 to 7, there would be no need to cancel the agreement with the respondent Nos.3 to 7 and they would continue. Thus disposed off the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 are in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant and perused the appeal papers.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing the 2nd respondent to conduct public auction at the instance of the petitioner, who being an ex-councilor was not an aggrieved person. Further, it is stated that the appellants are in possession of the premises in question and they are carrying on their business for their livelihood. As per circular dated 26.10.2009 the 2nd respondent has enhanced the rent and fresh agreements were executed on 07.03.2011. Further, it is also contended that once the appellants are put in possession of the shops in question, they could be evicted only by way of taking action under the Act.
6. We have considered the contentions raised by the appellants and we are of the view, that the contentions are merit less and no ground is made out to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner, who claims to be an ex-member of the 2nd respondent – Town Panchayath, in the strict sense is not an aggrieved person. The petitioner sought for a direction to comply with the eviction order to evict the existing license holders and thereafter, to put the said shops to public auction. The said direction sought for by the petitioner would be against public interest. The 2nd respondent – Town Panchayath based on a circular dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure-R3) had renewed the lease of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 by enhancing the rent on the ground that respondent Nos.3 to 7 were already in possession. The 2nd respondent is a public authority. All public properties are to be auctioned so as to get maximum rentals or lease amount so as to benefit the public authority. Instead of putting the shops in question to public auction after the expiry of lease period of respondents 3 to 7, the 2nd respondent - Town Panchayath could not have renewed the lease by enhancing the rent. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge if the shop premises are put to auction, whoever offers higher price including respondent Nos.3 to 7 would be entitled to occupy the premises. The object of putting the public properties to auction is to get best possible price, which would be in the best interest of the public authorities. Based on the circular dated 26.10.2009 the 2nd respondent – Town Panchayath could not have extended the lease by enhancing the rent, which is against public policy and interest. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference as the same would benefit the 2nd respondent and is in the best interest of public.
No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10500 of 2011. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms