1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.21322/2013 (LB-RES) Between:
Sri. Rajanna, S/o. Late Thirumalaiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Magadi Gaddebailu, Kempegowda Nagar, Magadi Town, Ramanagar District – 562 120. …Petitioner (By:Mr.Dharmapal, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Reptd. By its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council of Magadi, Magadi Town, Ramanagar District – 562 120.
3. The Administrative Officer, Town Municipal Council of Magadi, Magadi Town, Ramanagar District – 562 120.
4. The President, Town Municipal Council of Magadi, Magadi Town, Ramanagar District – 562 120.
…Respondents (By:Mr.A.K.Vasanth, AGA for R1; Mr.A.V.Gangadharappa, Adv. For R2; R3 & R4 are served & unrepresented) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent to withdraw the decision dated 13.03.2013 of tendering the public toilet belongs to T.M.C. of Magadi Town situated in old private bus stand at Magadi town by public auction as per Annexure – A etc.
This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr.Dharmapal, Adv. for Petitioner Mr.A.K.Vasanth, AGA for R1 Mr. A.V.Gangadharapa, Adv. for R2 The petition has been filed by Mr.Rajanna with the following prayers:
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent to withdraw the decision dated 13.03.2013 of tendering the public toilet belongs to T.M.C. of Magadi Town situated in Old Private Bus Stand at Magadi Town, by public auction as per Annexure-A and b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to cancel and continue with the lease agreement letter dated 29.1.2013 issued in favour of the petitioner for the period of 5 years from 29.1.2013 as per Annexure-B. and c) Grant such other relief, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
INTERIM PRAYER Pending disposal of the present writ petition, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 not to disturb and interfere in running the said public toilet situated in old private bus stand at Magadi Town, which was allotted him as per Annexure-B till disposal of the main writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The respondent – Town Municipal Council of Magadi has filed a reply to the summons issued by this Court and a copy is produced before this Court in Annexure-R1 - Resolution passed by said the Municipal Council that the contractual period of the petitioner to maintain the public toilet in question which was initially given for a period of 5 years vide Annexure-B on 29.1.2013, and was to end on 28.01.2018 was curtailed up to 31.3.2017 by the said Resolution - Annexure - R1 dated 3.11.2014. The said Resolution No.67 is reproduced below for ready reference:
“Date:03.11.2014 Present:=23+1 Absent:0 Total No.present:23+1 Subject 67: Any other subject with the permission of the President.
Subject 67/8: Application of Rajanna requesting for continuation of the maintenance of toilet as per the auction sale held on 14/05/2013.
Resolved 67/8: Considered the application. Sri Rajanna has filed case against the municipality before the Hon’ble High Court. The matter is already delayed. It is resolved to continue the maintenance contract of Rajanna from 01/04/2014 to 31/3/2017 by fixing the annual rent at Rs.70,000 and receiving Rs.30,000 as advance subject to the auction conditions held on 14/5/2013.
Sd/- President Town Muncipality, Magadi.”
3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Municipal Council, Mr.A.V.Gangadharappa, has submitted before the Court that the petitioner has acted in terms of the said Resolution for the last three years and suddenly now is again claiming for extending the period of the said contract up to 21.9.2018, for the extra period of 5 years from the commencement of the work order vide Annexure-B dated 29.1.2013.
4. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that in such contractual matters, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not even maintainable as the disputed questions of facts are involved in the case. More over, since the petitioner has acted in terms of the said Resolution for all this period of last three years up to 31.3.2017, this Court does not find any basis for the petitioner for seeking the mandamus direction by this Court for directing the Municipal Council to extend the contractual period beyond 31.3.2017.
5. The petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* Ct:VBS