IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.14943 OF 2017 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
Sri T.Thimmaiah S/o Late Thimmaiah Aged about 71 years R/at 213/2D, New Kanthrajurs Road 2nd Main, Mysuru-570 014 …Petitioner (By Sri.K.L.Sreenivas, Adv. for Sri.V.N.Madhava Reddy, Adv.) AND:
1. Mysuru City Corporation, Represented by its Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) New Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysuru-570 014 2. The Mysuru City Corporation Rep. by its Competent Officer under KPP Act, 1974 and Commissioner New Sayyaji Rao Road Mysuru-570 014 … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-A the sale deed dated:30.07.2016 passed by R-2 in proceedings P.P.No.11/2007 and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate for Sri V N Madhava Reddy.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondents.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was awarded a licence to run Cycle-Scooter stand in the premises by virtue of licence and lease agreement dated 27.04.1991. Initially, the agreement was executed for a period of 35 months. However, on 30.07.2016, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to vacate the premises for construction of toilet on the footpath. Thereafter, the proceedings against the petitioner was initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and an order of eviction was passed by the competent authority on 30.07.2016, which was confirmed in appeal on 15.03.2017. The petitioner interalia seeks quashing of the aforesaid orders as well as writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to renew the licence granted to the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eventhough, orders of eviction has been passed against the petitioner, he has not been evicted from the premises in his occupation till today. He further submits that the Writ Petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the renewal of licence.
5. In view of aforesaid submissions and the facts of the case, petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority or the respondent/corporation to take appropriate decision on the application for renewal of licence filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, by a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today by this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Brn Sd/- JUDGE