IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.41094/2016 (GM-PP) BETWEEN SRI ASANGI MARUTHI VIDYA PEETA, NO.7, 3RD ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, SULTHANPALYA, R.T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. D. SURENDRA KUMAR, AGE:63 YEARS, S/O D DEVARAJU.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA V.RAYAPPA, ADV.) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.
2. THE SECRETARY, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.M.VIJAY, ADV. FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.15.7.2016 IN MISC. APPEAL NO.03/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEX-M AND ALSO THAT THE ORDER DTD.22.9.2014 PASSED BY R-2 UNDER SECTION 5[1] OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES [EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS] ACT 1974, VIDE ANNEX-G ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Manjunatha V. Rayappa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri A.M.Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the competent authority as well as the order dated 15.07.2016, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the order dated 22.09.2014, passed by the competent authority suffers from procedural irregularity as much as the petitioner has not been afforded with an opportunity to adduce evidence. The aforesaid aspect has not been appreciated by the Appellate Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and is also unable to controvert from the record that the petitioner was given an opportunity to adduce the evidence.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, provides that a person should be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case and after giving reasonable opportunity, it has to be heard by the competent authority and to pass the order. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner is not been given opportunity to adduce his evidence. Thus, the impugned order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the competent authority and confirmed by the appellate authority on 15.07.2016, suffers from procedural infirmity and cannot be sustained in the eye of law . Therefore, both the impugned orders are hereby quashed.
7. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and thereafter, to conclude the enquiry and decide the matter, within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj