IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION Nos.15349-15350/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MR. ZOHEB WAHEED AHMED, S/O MOHAMMED HAYATH WAHEED AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.207, ALTHAMAN 59, REMRAM, DUBAI, UAE.
2. MR. ZUBAIR WAHEED AHMAD, S/O MOHAMMED HAYATH WAHEED AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.441, 14TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560030.
AND ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.
2. MR. MOHAMMED HAYATH WAHEED AHMED, S/O LATE MOHAMED HAYATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.441, 14TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 030.
3. SALEEM AHMED, MAJOR.
4. MARTIN GEORGE MENACLEM, MAJOR.
RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.133, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, LAXMI LAYOUT, ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y. D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1, SMT. HEMALATHA S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ANNEXURE-A DATED 29.01.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN MSC/CR/34/18-19, ALLOW THIS W.P. WITH COSTS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri Y. D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Smt. Hemalatha S, the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.2.
2. Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 29.1.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised the solitary contention that neither any notice nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner while passing the impugned order.
5. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been fairly disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who is the complainant before the Assistant Commissioner.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the tenants in respect of the property in question. Therefore, no notice need to be issued to them.
7. Taking into account the fact that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the same is non est in the eye of law. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order expeditiously.
8. The learned counsel for the parties undertake to appear before the Assistant Commissioner along with the copy of this order on 2.5.2019.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD