Scribd
Upload
72 views9 pages

WP201007 17 19 04 2017

The petitioners, who operate cloth businesses in Vijayapura city, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Municipal Corporation to consider their applications for allotment of shops on Kacheri Road. The Court notes that the petitioners have operated businesses on Kacheri Road for decades, deposited funds for new shops as requested, but their applications were not considered while other applicants' were. The Court orders the Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioners' applications within 4 weeks and allot shops according to the guidelines.

Uploaded by

Ravi Badri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views9 pages

WP201007 17 19 04 2017

The petitioners, who operate cloth businesses in Vijayapura city, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Municipal Corporation to consider their applications for allotment of shops on Kacheri Road. The Court notes that the petitioners have operated businesses on Kacheri Road for decades, deposited funds for new shops as requested, but their applications were not considered while other applicants' were. The Court orders the Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioners' applications within 4 weeks and allot shops according to the guidelines.

Uploaded by

Ravi Badri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION NOS.201007/2017


& 201008/2017 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Maruti S/o Dattatreya Jawalkar,


Aged about : 53 Years,
Occ : Business,
R/o : Old Kumar Oni,
Azad Road, Vijayapur,
Dist. Vijayapur-586101.

2. Sri. Atiqahmed S/o Mainuddin Hattarkihal,


Aged about : 35 Years,
Occ : Business,
R/o Sakaf Roza, Vijayapur,
Dist. Vijayapur-586101.
... Petitioners

(By Sri S.S. Mamadapur, Advocate)

AND:

1. The Deputy Commissioner,


Vijayapur,
Dist. Vijayapur-586101.
2

2. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Vijayapur,
Dist.Vijayapur-586101.

... Respondents
(By Sri Shivaputra S. Udbalkar, HCGP
for respondent No.1)

(By Sri Amaresh S. Roja, Advocate


for respondent No.2)

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226


and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a
writ of mandamus or direction or any other order in the
nature of writ directing the respondents to allot one
shop each to the petitioners on Kacheri Road Vijayapur
etc.,

These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the


Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners who are residents of Vijayapura

city are before the court seeking for a writ of mandamus

directing the respondents to consider the

representations submitted by the petitioners as per


3

Annexures-N and P dated 02.09.2016 and 03.09.2016

for allotment of shops on Kacheri Road Vijayapura city

contending that petitioner No.1 is eking out his

livelihood by doing cloth business for the last 25 to 30

years and petitioner No.2 is also doing cloth business

on Kacheri road, (attached to Government High School

Compound) Vijayapura, and aforesaid business is the

only source of income to the petitioners and their entire

family is depending upon them. The respondent No.2 –

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation issued license to

run the business on Kacheri road (10’ x 10’) each to the

petitioners and same has been extended from time to

time and petitioners have also paid tax to the

Corporation.

2. When the things stood thus, the respondent No.2

proposed to construct new shops on Kacheri road and

rehabilitate people doing business on said road by

allotting shops by receiving advance deposit. Pursuant


4

to the same, petitioner No.1 has deposited a sum of

Rs.50,000/- on 28.02.2006 and petitioner No.2 has also

deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- in favour of respondent

No.2 on 25.02.2006 as per the receipts issued by

respondent No.2 for allotment of shops on Kacheri road.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the

respondents have not allotted any shops despite of

deposit made and therefore petitioners made

representations to respondent No.2 requesting to allot

the shops to the petitioners. It is further contended

that respondent No.2 has constructed 18 shops on

Kacheri road for allotment in favour of effected persons

by road widening and who have deposited the amount

as required. However, at the instance of influential

persons the said shops are not being allotted to persons

who are legally entitled.


5

4. It is further contention of the petitioners that some

of the persons have been already allotted shops, but

inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioners and

even after deposing the amount for allotment of shops,

respondent No.2 has not considered the same nor

allotted the shops till today. Therefore, petitioners are

before this court for relief sought for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the

lis.

6. Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the

petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ

petition contended that similarly situated persons like

the present petitioners have already been allotted shops.

But inspite of deposit made by the present petitioners,

respondent No.2 has not considered the representation

nor allotted the shops to the petitioners. The inaction

on the part of the respondents unnecessarily driven the


6

petitioners before this court for the relief sought for.

Therefore, he sought allow the present writ petitions.

7. Per contra, Sri Amaresh S. Roja, learned counsel

for respondent No.2 submits that on 22.09.2016 some

of the shops have been allotted in favour of the

proposed impleading applicants. In pursuance to the

same, lease deed has also been executed for a period of

12 years by the concerned authorities. Learned counsel

is not in a position to state whether respondent No.2

has considered the representations made by the

petitioners as per Annexures-N and P or not at this

stage.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is

clear that the petitioners have been running their cloth

business on Kacheri road for more than 25 to 30 years.

It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 proposed

to construct new shops on Kacheri road and rehabilitate

people doing business on said road by allotting shops by


7

receiving advance deposit. It is also not in dispute that

respondent No.2 has issued license to both the

petitioners on Kacheri road in respect of 10’ x 10’ shops

and same has been extended from time to time. It is

also not in dispute that petitioners 1 and 2 have

deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/-

respectively before respondent No.2 for allotment of

shops. It is also not in dispute that without considering

the representation made by the petitioners, respondent

No.2 already allotted some of the shops to the proposed

impleading applicants and the concerned authority also

executed lease deed in favour of the proposed

impleading applicants. If that is so, why the

representation of the petitioners for allotment of shops

is not considered by respondent No.2 is not

forthcoming. Respondent No.2 being the competent

authority has to treat all the persons equally and he

should not discriminate between the applicants, while

allotting the shops. Respondent No.2 shall follow the


8

guidelines strictly in accordance with law. The same has

not been done in the present case. Therefore,

petitioners have made out case for issue writ of

mandamus as prayed for.

9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is

allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the

respondent No.2 to consider the representation of

petitioners made on 02.09.2016 and 03.09.2016 as per

Annexures-N and P for allotment of shops on Kacheri

road, Vijayapura city and pass orders in accordance

with the guidelines issued within an outer limit of four

weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

In the meanwhile, the interim order granted by

this Court on 08.03.2017 shall enure to the benefit of

the petitioners.
9

In view of disposal of the main matter itself,

consideration of I.A.No.1/2017 for impleading and

I.A.No.2/2017 for vacating stay does not arise.

Accordingly I.A.No.I/2017 and I.A.No.2/2017 are

disposed of.

Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP

You might also like