IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8323 OF 2016 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
SMT VISHNUKANTI W/O KANNAN AGE 70 YEARS R/O NO.169, SADASHIVA MUDALAIAR ROAD 1ST CROSS, MURPHY TOWN ULSOOR BENGALURU – 560008.
(By Mr. P CHANDRASHEKAR, FOR Mr. VIJETHA R NAIK, ADV.) AND:
1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560002 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (EAST) & COMPETENT OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAYO HALL BENGALURU – 01.
(By Mr. K V MOHAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dtd:22.6.2009 passed by the R-2 Additional commissioner (East) and competent Officer, BBMP in so far as the petitioner is concerned produced as Annexure-R and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.P.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the competent authority as well as the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition are as follows:
Proceeding under the Act were initiated against the petitioner and the competent authority passed an order of eviction on 22.06.2009. The petitioner was issued a notice on 02.09.2009 by the Assistant Revenue Officer, by which he was asked to vacate the premises. It is the case of the petitioner that thereupon he learnt about the order of eviction which was passed against him. Thereafter, however, the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the order and the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 05.04.2010 and obtained the documents as well as the order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal on 16.06.2010 along with an application for condonation of delay. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that there has been a delay of 360 days and the petitioner has not been able to show any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority ought to have appreciated that the petitioner was terminated from services and shown sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has supported the order passed by the appellate authority.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
8. It is well settled in law that expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive principles of construction so as to advance the acts of justice. In the instant case, an order was passed by the competent authority on 22.06.2009 admittedly in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner adjudicated the aforesaid order on 02.09.2009 when he was served with the notice from the Assistant Revenue Officer to vacate the premises. However, the documents as well as the copy of the order was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, submitted an application on 05.04.2010 under the Right to Information Act and after obtaining the copies of the order as well as the documents, the petitioner filed an appeal on 16.06.2010 along with an application for condonation of delay. Thus, in the fact situation of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner was terminated from sufficient cause from not filing the appeal. The finding recorded by the appellate authority that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner cannot but be termed as perverse. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority dated 20.10.2015 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties undertake to appear before the appellate authority along with the copy of this order on 28th March 2019. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order on merits within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV