Karnataka High Court
Mohd. Rafeeq S/O Hussain Patel And ... vs The Director Of Municipal ... on 14 September, 2021
Author: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara J.M.Khazi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
WRIT APPEAL No.200044/2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHD. RAFEEQ S/O HUSSAIN PATEL
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BENDE BAZAAR, SHAHABAD
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
2. ABDUL MANNAN S/O ABDUL LATEEF
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BENDE BAZAAR, SHAHABAD
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
3. ABDUL AZEEM S/O ABDUL HAFEEZ
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BENDE BAZAAR, SHAHABAD
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI
4. MD. ASLAM S/O ABDUL KALAM
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BENDE BAZAAR, SHAHABAD
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
5. MD. ZAIRUDDIN S/O MD. ISMAIL
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
WA No.200044/2021
2
R/O BENDE BAZAAR, SHAHABAD
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
6. ABDUL NAYEEM S/O ABDUL HAFEEZ
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BENDE BAZAAR, SHAHABAD
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATIONS, 9TH FLOOR
VISHVESHWARAIH GOPURA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI.
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DIST. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI.
4. THE COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ANURADHA M. DESAI, GA TO R1 TO R3;
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 IN W.P.NO.226450/2020 (LB-RES)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND FURTHER
PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL, BY QUASHING THE PUBLIC AUCTION
WA No.200044/2021
3
NOTIFICATION DATED 01.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL SHAHABAD, NEW CONSTRUCTED SHOPS NUMBERS 1
TO 32, OF COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AT SRI RAM CHOWK AND AT
BENDE BAZAAR SHAHABAD.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING, THIS DAY DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appellants claiming themselves to be the
persons in occupation of certain shop premises in a public place
had challenged the order of the present respondent No.4
evicting them from the place. It was their contention that after
the construction of the new building they were promised to allot
with any place in the new construction. However, they were
not. It was also their contention that seeking the allotment in
the new construction they had given representation to the
present respondent No.4 which representation also not
considered by the respondent.
2. The present appellants had filed a Writ Petition
No.226450/2020 in that regard, which came to be disposed of
by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated
08.10.2020 wherein he rejected the writ petition observing that
WA No.200044/2021
there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners. However,
it also made an observation that the competent authority was
required to consider the representation said to have been given
by the petitioners to the respondent No.4, in accordance with
law and within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of the said order.
3. The grievance of the present appellants is that their
representation till date has not been considered by respondent
No.4.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants are not aggrieved by the rejection of their writ
petition but they are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of
the respondent No.4 in not considering their representation, as
such, the appellants would not press the present appeal,
however, reserving liberty to initiate appropriate legal action
against respondent No.4 for not considering their representation
despite an observation made by this Court in
W.P.No.226450/2020 on 08.10.2020.
WA No.200044/2021
5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 who
are also physically present submit their no objection to dispose
of the writ appeal as prayed for by the appellants.
6. In view of the above, the writ appeal stands
disposed of as not pressed. However, reserving liberty to the
appellants to take appropriate action, if available to them under
law, to ensure the compliance of consideration of their
representation, if any made to respondent No.4, as observed in
W.P.No.226450/2020 on 08.10.2020.
Needless to say the respondent No.4 has taken note of
the impugned order dated 08.10.2020 passed in
W.P.No.226450/2020 though he is said to have not been notified
in the writ petition.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2020
does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
sdu
