Mrs. Nusrath Unnissa vs Town Panchyath and The State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Respondent No. 2 is served and unrepresented. Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the resolution dated 03.05.2010 and also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide permanent stalls with amenities for processing and vending Chicken/Mutton to the Chicken Stall owners within the market on long lease.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to carry on the business of Chicken/Mutton vending in Shop No. 1 situate in the building belonging to respondent No. 1. The manner in which at an earlier instance certain right had been created in favour of the petitioner and in that regard, certain deposits were also made by the petitioner is averred in the petition. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner had right to carry on his business in the said shop he could not do so as the shop was not in a habitable condition. In that regard, the petitioner could occupy the same only belatedly and therefore, the petitioner is seeking for grant of long lease.

When this was the position, respondent No. 1 had published a public notice dated 10.02.2011 calling for tenders to carry on the business in the shops belonging to respondent No. 1. In the said public notice, Shop No. 1 was also included. In response to the same, the petitioner is stated to have made representation as at Annexure-K to the first respondent. Since the said representation dated 07.03.2011 was not considered and the first respondent was proceeding further with the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court.

A perusal of the order sheet would indicate that this Court by the order dated 16.03.2011 had stayed the auction of one shop (Shop No. 1) for a period of four weeks. Since the interim order was granted on 16.03.2011 and the auction was scheduled on 17.03.2011, naturally the public notice would have lapsed as the auction in respect of the said shop would not have been proceeded on the next date.

Even if the said shop is to be allotted to any person, fresh public notice would have to be issued in the meanwhile, since the petitioner has also indicated that the petitioner had made a representation as at Annexure-K claiming certain right in respect of the said shop, before the first respondent takes any further steps to reaction the shop, the first respondent would have to consider the representation made by the petitioner, take a decision on that aspect of the matter, convey the said decision to the petitioner and only thereafter proceed further in the matter, so that if the petitioner has any further grievance, the could ventilate the same in appropriate proceedings.

Hence the petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Annexure-K in accordance with law and only thereafter deal with the property bearing shop No. 1 in the manner desired by the first respondent depending on the result of such consideration. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall now file one more copy of the representation along with a certified copy of this order with the first respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy, of this order. The first respondent shall thereafter take a decision on the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than six weeks from the date of the representation and communicate the same to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law depending on the result of the consideration.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.