IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.18845/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
Sri Khatib Mohammad Asim, S/o Khatib Abdul Rashid, Aged about 29 years, R/o Hafiza Manzil, M B Road, Malpe, Udupi Taluk and District – 573 103. (By Sri Raju Bhat, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, Multi Storied Building, Ambedkarvidi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Panchayath Development Officer, Haradi Gram Panchayat, Udupi Taluk and District – 574 118.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Udupi, Taluk and District Udupi – 574 118.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Udupi, Taluk and District Udupi – 574 118.
… Petitioner 5. Sri Hariprasad Shetty, S/o Anand Shetty, Aged about 52 years, R/o Nadubettu House, Shiriyar Village, Kundapur Taluk, Udupi District – 576 201.
6. Ananda Devadiga, Aged about 48 years, S/o Shankara Devadiga, R/at Vatsal Nivas, Near C J Church, 76th Badagubettu, Bailur, Udupi Taluk and District – 574 118.
(By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1; Sri Ranjith K.S., Advocate for R2;
Sri K.A. Ariga, Advocate for R6;
R3 to R5 – served and unrepresented) … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned notice- 2/order dated 16.04.2019 issued by the R-2 directing the petitioner to stop fish cutting activity and vacate the premises within 3 days from the date of receipt of the notice. A copy of the impugned notice/order is hereby produced as Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is stated to have put up a temporary shed in land bearing Sy.No.117 measuring 10.02 acres situated at Haradi village, Udupi Taluk and was conducting “Fish Cutting”. It is submitted that a complaint was made by the respondent no.6 to the second respondent calling upon the second respondent to take action to stop functioning of the petitioner’s enterprise.
2. It is further submitted that respondent no.6 had filed W.P.No.6746/2019 and had sought for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities as regards his complaint. This court disposed off the said writ petition vide order dated 19.02.2019 directing the Panchayath Development Officer of the Gram Panchayath to decide the representation made. There was a further direction that the representation was to be considered by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. Subsequently as regards the notice at Annexure-‘F’, the petitioner had addressed a letter at Annexure-‘G’ requesting furnishing of certain documents to enable sending an effective reply. Subsequent to the said reply dated 08.04.2019, on 16.04.2019, as per Annexure-‘A’, an order styled as notice has been passed. The petitioner submits that the order at Annexure-‘A’ does not refer to the request submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-‘G’ to the notice at Annexure-‘F’.
3. The petitioner further submits that he had sought for documents as per representation at Annexure-‘G’ and without furnishing of the said documents the petitioner is not in a position to reply to the notice at Annexure-‘F’.
4. The learned counsel for respondent Panchayath Development Officer submits that the documents sought for by the petitioner at Annexure-‘G’ would be provided.
5. The learned counsel for respondent Panchayath Development Officer submits that there would be reconsideration after looking into the reply to be submitted by the petitioner and after taking note of the objections of respondent no.6.
6. Accordingly, the notice/order at Annexure-‘A’ is set aside. The second respondent to furnish copies as are available and requested at Annexure-‘G’, to the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent taking note of the directions passed in W.P.No.6746/2019 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein after considering the reply to be submitted by the petitioner and also considering the objections and representation of respondent no.6, pass a considered order. The petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.
7. The petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title.
In light of disposal of the petition, no order requires to be passed on pending applications and are accordingly disposed off as not requiring any orders.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-