IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.38956 OF 2019 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SRI.RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE.THANIYAPPA, R/AT DOOR NO.1-28-22-82, NEAR DEVI GUDI, ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALURU-575 006. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SACHIN.B.S, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MANGALORE-575 006. ... RESPONDENT THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT FROM CALLING-E-TENDER AND E-AUCTION AS PER PAPER PUBLICATION PUBLISHED IN UDAYAVANI NEWS PAPER DTD:7.8.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard.
3. In this petition, the petitioner who claims to be the member and President of Tax Assessment, Finance and Standing Committee of Mangaluru City Corporation assailed the validity of the action of the respondent in calling E-Tender and E-Auction as per paper publication tendered in Udayavani newspaper dated 07.08.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is a member of the Tax Assessment, Finance and Standing Committee of Mangaluru City Corporation and therefore, he has locus to maintain the writ petition. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent in auctioning the property belonging to the Mangaluru Municipal Corporation is contrary to the resolution passed by the Mangaluru Municipal Corporation, is per se without jurisdiction.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.
6. Under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) the Corporation is a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and common seal.
7. The aforesaid Corporation can sue and be sued in the name of the Corporation of the City of Mangaluru. In the instant case, there is no resolution in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to file any petition on behalf of the Corporation of City of Mangaluru.
8. Admittedly, the property in question belongs to the Corporation of City of Mangaluru. Therefore, on prima facie consideration of this petition, the petitioner has no locus to maintain this petition and this petition has not been filed in public interest. In view of the preceding analysis, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, however, all the legal questions are kept open.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE GH