IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.38842 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
NISHA MILLETS SWIMMING ACADEMY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, BIKRANJIT FLOYDD CHATTERJEE, HAVING OFFICE AT 001, DEVKIRAN, 36 CLARKE ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN, BANGALORE 560084 (BY SMT.AARTI MUNDKOR, ADV.) AND:
DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT AND SPORT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.
(BY SRI.B BALAKRISHNA, AGA) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD:17.8.2019 AT ANNEXURE-E THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt..Aarti Munkor, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 17.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Department of Youth Empowerment and Sport by which the Commissioner has refused to renew the agreement of the petitioner for management of the Kensington swimming pool. Admittedly, the aforesaid swimming pool was granted to the petitioner on lease for a period of two years i.e., from 21.04.2017 to 21.04.2019. After expiry of period of lease that by mutual consent of the parties, the period of lease was extended for a further period of three months and thereafter, the petitioner deposited rent by way of Demand Draft for a period of nine months. The aforesaid demand draft was enchased by the respondents. However, the period of lease of the petitioner was renewed only for a period of one month. Thereafter, by impugned communication dated 17.08.2019, the petitioner has been directed to hand over the possession of the swimming pool to the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sport in proper condition. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have accepted the amount of Demand Draft for a period of nine months. Therefore, they are under an obligation to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the swimming pool in question for remaining eight months.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount, which was deposited by the petitioner does not clearly show that the aforesaid amount is for a period of nine months. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Kensington swimming pool is public property, the aforesaid public properly is to be dealt with in a manner known to law in a clandestine manner. The respondents have absolutely no authority in law to renew the lease in case the petitioner wanted to renew the lease, respondents ought to have issued either an e-auction / Notice Inviting Tender alone. In a clandestinely manner the Demand Draft submitted by the petitioner cannot be accepted and secretly the lease in respect of petitioner cannot be renewed, which is a manner not known to law.
4. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not fine any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the respondent is directed to refund the amount for a period of eight months to the petitioner within a period of one week from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest at 10% p.a. till the payment is made.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS