IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.47775 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.M.H.CHANDREGOWDA, S/O.LATE SRI.HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O AT NO.6, CHAMPAKADHAMA NILAYA, 13TH CROSS, KALYANANAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 057. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
REP. BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ FEDERATION LIMITED, K M F COMPLEX, P B NO.2915, DR M H MARIGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 29, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 14/5, CHIKKASANDRA, HESARAGHATTA MIAN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 057, REPRESENTED BY, ITS DIRECTOR . ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI.REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 12.10.2017 VIDE ANNEX-N ISSUED BY R-1 AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Sampath Bapat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.M.S.Narayan, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri.Reuben Jacob, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner interalia seeks quashment of order dated 12.10.2017 passed by respondent No.1.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the lease granted in favour of respondent No.2 was for a period of two years and the aforesaid period come to an end on 02.06.2019. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order which has been impugned in this petition would come in the way of the petitioner in filing an application for renewal.
In view of the aforesaid submission, writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the prayer for renewal is made, respondent No.1 shall deal with the prayer for renewal without being influenced by the order dated 12.10.2017 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE GH