AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus to the respondent No. 1 directing him to consider the I.A. fled by him in PraAaBe/BGM/ ENT/AP-8/2010-II dated 20.06.2011. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, he has been running a Cinema Theatre "Han''s Talkies" at Belgaum by obtaining the land on lease basis from respondent No. 3 since 1940. The petitioner filed an application on 14.10.2009 seeking renewal of licence for a period of 3 years from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2012. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order dated 01.06.2011 keeping the licence under suspension. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1 Regional Commissioner. Belgaum Division, Belgaum. In the said appeal, he has made an application for stay of the said suspension order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is prod need at Annexure - A to the petition.
Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fairly submits that, whenever a statutory appeal is filed before an authority constituted under the Act, the authority owes a duty to consider the appeal particularly the stay application and should pass appropriate order. Me also submits that, he will definitely instruct respondent No. 1 to consider the said stay application, said to have been filed by the petitioner in his appeal on the next date of hearing itself and pass appropriate orders. His submission is placed on record.
Sri. M.G. Naganuri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 Trust submits that, respondent No. 3 Trust is the owner of land and had leased the land in favour of the petitioner in which he has been running, the cinema theatre. He submits that, respondent No. 3 has not renewed the lease granted in favour of the petitioner which expired on 31.12.2009 and on the other hand respondent No. 3 has terminated the tenancy of the petitioner by issuing notice. Since, the petitioner failed to comply with the notice and vacate the premises, respondent No. 3 filed a suit in O.S. No. 60/2011 before the Pal. Civil Judge, Jr. Dvn., Belgaum for recovery of possession of the premises from the petitioner, therefore, question of allowing the writ petition and directing respondent No.1 to consider the stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal does not arise. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
It is to be noted that, whenever there is an appeal by a citizen before a statutory body constituted under an Act, the authority owes a duty to consider the said appeal and dispose1 of the same in accordance with law, particularly when an application is made in such an appeal or revision as the case may be seeking stay of the order impugned in the appeal or revision and if the same is not considered by statutory body functioning as quash judicial authority, the very purpose of filing of appeal or revision will be defeated and the said position of law is covered by a Judgment of this Court.
Respondent No. 3 being one of the parties to the appeal before respondent No. 1, instead of resisting this petition is at liberty to resist the appeal and stay application before respondent No. 1, but he shall do it on the next date of hearing without seeking any adjournment.
It is unfortunate that, although the petitioner has filed an appeal on 01.06.2011 before respondent No. 1 challenging the order Annexure-A passe a by respondent No. 2, along with an application seeking stay of the order Annexure A passed by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 has not considered the said application till date, which has necessitated this Court to issue direction to him to consider the said application and pass appropriate order forthwith. Considering the said position of law and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the stay application said to have been filed by the petitioner in the appeal on the next date of hearing i.e, 26.07.2011 self and pass appropriate orders. All contentions of all parties are kept open. To ensure the compliance of the order, 1 hereby direct the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to communicate the order of this Court to respondent Nos.1 and 2 by fax message. Non compliance of the order will be viewed very seriously. The learned AGA is permitted file to file me of appearance in four weeks time.