IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2143 OF 2017(GM-PP) BETWEEN:
M/S RSM PRINT TECHNOLOGY FLAT NO.FF-6 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PEENYA IIND STAGE BANGALORE-560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SONNARANGE GOWDA.
(BY MR. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN BANGALORE-560 010 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PEENYA DIVISION OFFICE A-180 4TH CROSS ROAD PEENYA 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 058.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. V SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R-1, MR. GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R-2 & R3) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD.5.12.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER SUB-SEC(1) OF SECTION (5) OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.V.Shivareddy, High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Mr.Gurudev I Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. when the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 10 of the Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case the petitioner filed an appeal within a period of four months from today, the appellate authority shall extend the benefit contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits.
Interim order, if any, granted by a Bench of this Court shall continue till the appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS