IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.51646/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
1. Mr. Thoufic, S/o Mr. Abdul Khadar, Aged about 35 years, R/at Ameer Mohalla, Neharu Nagar, Beluru Town, Hassan District – 573 115.
2. Sri S.T. Paramesh, S/o Sri Thammannagowda, Aged about 45 years, R/at Kalleri Village, Mandalamane Post, Geddehalli Hobli, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115.
3. Sri Paramesh, S/o Sri Dyavappa, Aged about 45 years, R/at E. Hosahalli Village, Madihalli Hobli, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115. … Petitioners (By Sri C.R. Gopalaswamy, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Pattana Panchayath, Belur, Hassan District – 573 115. … Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1; Sri A. Nagarajappa, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned endorsement dated 17.12.2018, issued by the R-2 to the petitioners vide Annexure-Z and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Sri A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners are stated to be fish vendors and running fish vending business. It is further submitted that though the trade licence was renewed periodically, the application for grant of trade licence for the year 2018-2019 was initially not decided leading to the petitioners filing Writ Petition No.546/2019 (LB-RES) & Writ Petition Nos.1561- 62/2019 seeking for necessary direction. As the application for grant of licence sought for by the petitioners was rejected by order dated 17.12.2018, writ petitions were disposed off by order dated 06.09.2019 granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the same before the competent Authority.
3. The petitioners subsequently have initiated proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for brevity) and the Deputy Commissioner has however refused to entertain the proceedings noticing that the petition presented by the petitioners under Section 306 of the Act could not be considered. The petitioners had also subsequently approached the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru and it is stated that the petition submitted by petitioners challenging the order of rejection was not entertained by the Regional Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said action of Deputy Commissioner and Regional Commissioner and also aggrieved by the endorsement dated 17.12.2018, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. Upon notice, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-Z could be challenged in proceedings under Section 322 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent Authority.
5. Taking note of the nature of dispute involved and on perusal of the endorsement at Annexure-Z, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioners to avail of the remedy of revision under Section 322 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner in order to obtain the redressal of their grievances as regards the endorsement at Annexure-Z dated 17.12.2018.
6. The petitioners are permitted to submit their revision petition within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order before the Deputy Commissioner. Upon presentation of such petition, the Deputy Commissioner to consider the request of petitioners for grant of interim relief expeditiously and dispose of the revision petition itself within a reasonable period of time, not later than three months from the date of presentation.
7. However, the endorsement at Annexure-Z dated 17.12.2018 would be kept in abeyance till consideration of petitioners’ prayer for interim relief.
Petition is accordingly disposed off, subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR