IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.10886 OF 2019 AND WRIT PETITION NO.11421 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI R.G.SOMASHEKAR S/O H.RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.124, 1ST FLOOR, 12TH B MAIN 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 2. SRI R.G.JAYARAM S/O H.RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.124, GROUND FLOOR 12TH B MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR Bangalore-560 010 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.NATARAJ R., ADV.) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE-560 009 2. SMT.SIDDALINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O H.RAMEGOWDA 3. SRI.H.RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.11 & 12, 4TH MAIN DWARAKA NAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHWETHA RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI. Y.D.HARSHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:27.02.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.MSC/CR/80/2018-19 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Nataraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt Shwetha Ravishankar, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission.
3. Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, same is heard finally.
4. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by which the gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled.
5. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners raised sole contention that the impugned order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without issuing any notice to the petitioners and the same is not preceded by any enquiry. It is further submitted that a notice was issued to the petitioners on 23.01.2019 for their appearance before the Assistant Commissioner on 06.02.2019. However, on the aforesaid date, the postal acknowledgement was received with the endorsement as ‘not claimed’. Thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner without conducting any enquiry posted the case for orders on 26.02.2019 and thereafter, passed an order on 27.02.2019, which has been impugned in these petitions.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that since, now the petitioners are aware about the proceedings pending before the Assistant Commissioner, the matter may be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner be directed to adjudicate the same in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
7. In view of aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that the order impugned in these petitions dated 27.02.2019 has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without holding any enquiry, the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 is hereby quashed.
Parties undertake to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 03.04.2019 alongwith a copy of this order. After the appearance of the petitioners, within one week thereafter they shall file objections and thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner shall proceed to deal with the matters in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE brn