IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs. 36532-36533 OF 2017 (LB-RES-PIL) BETWEEN:
MR.NANJARAJ M S/O MYLARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS (BY SMT.KALPANA P.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHAN SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.
2. THE DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VESHVESHWARA TOWERS 9TH FLOOR BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSORE-570 024.
4. M/s NETAJI CONSUMER’S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.4358/A, 5TH CROSS, ... PETITIONER GANDHINAGARA, MYSORE-570 007 ALSO AT KARUNA PURA PARK ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570 007, REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
5. MR.BALASUNDER, S/O M.R.MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.4341, 9TH CROSS, LASHKAR MOHALLA, GANDHINAGARA MYSORE-570 007, 6. MR.DHANAPAL, S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.4296, 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, MYSORE-570 007.
7. MR. P.SRIKANTA MURTY, S/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O 4358/2A, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570 007.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI P.B.ACHAPPA, AGA, FOR R-1 & R-2; SHRI MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR 4-3; SHRI B.S.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SHRI R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
NOTICE TO R-5 IS TREATED AS GOOD SERVICE VIDE ORDER DT. 27.9.2019) ---
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.8.2001 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. An order was made by the State Government on 5th December, 1997 regularizing the unauthorized lease period enjoyed by the fourth respondent Society. By the said Government Order, the lease was continued from 10th December, 1996 to 9th December, 2021 by enhancing the rent from 1st September, 1997 as specified in the said order. There is a further order of the State Government dated 24th August, 2001 by which approval was accorded by the State to Mysuru Municipality to sell the site to the fourth respondent at the market value of Rs.100/- by adding 20% on the said amount. It is this order of 24th August, 2001 which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation.
3. The writ petitions were filed on 10th August, 2017.
The basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition is that firstly, the initial lease was granted on the basis of a representation made by the fourth respondent that it is working for the welfare of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The second contention is that notwithstanding the said representation, the allotted site has been sold by the fourth respondent for a market price to three different persons. It is pointed out that a portion of the property is purchased by the President of the fourth respondent itself. Reliance is placed on various representations made from time to time.
4. There is a statement of objections filed by the fourth respondent in which it is denied that any breaches have been committed by the fourth respondent. It is contended that the site is not allotted for the welfare of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the fourth respondent is only a Consumer Society. It is contended that there is an absolute sale deed executed in favour of the fourth respondent and therefore, no interference is called for.
5. We have considered the submissions.
6. Firstly, there is a delay of about sixteen years in approaching the writ Court. It is well settled that repeated representations made to the authorities is no ground to ignore the gross delay.
7. It appears to us that there is no condition imposed in the lease as well as in the subsequent order permitting the sale, that the site should be used only for the upliftment and welfare of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. We find that there is no condition imposed in both the Government Orders preventing alienation.
8. Considering these aspects, no interference can be made in the writ jurisdiction at this stage. However, this order shall not preclude the State Government from examining whether any breaches have been committed by the fourth respondent Society. If the State Government finds that any breach is committed, it will take appropriate action in accordance with law.
9. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. The writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*