RAFIK AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE PRESIDENT IDSMT DIST CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR AND THE TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE TU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS claim a right to allotment of sheds in the commercial complex constructed by the 3rd respond ent -Tumkur Municipality (though described as Tumkar Mahanagara Palike). According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent said to be a District Coordination Committee of Intergrated Development of Small and Medium Towns, for short Rs. IDSMT prevailed upon the petitioners to deposit 25% of 'Goodwill amount' in order to construct bus stop and commercial complex as the Municipality was in financial crisis. Petitioners' having complied with the request, on the promise of allotment of shops" was followed by a resolution dt. 8.12.2006 Annexure -A of the 2nd respondent identifying persons entitled to allotment of the shops, which included the petitioners. On the allegation of failure to implement the resolution has resulted in this petition for a writ of mandamus. Undoubtedly the building in question is a public property held by the 3rd respondent -Tumkur Municipality as a trustee. If that is so, disposal of the building or the right to use the shops in the building, necessarily requires to be in accordance with law and the mandate of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, for short 'Act', More so, in the light of the opinion of a Division Bench in Mohan P. Sonu -v - State of Karnataka and others 1992(2) KLJ 245 interpreting Section 72 of the Act r/w Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1966 as being a safeguard in the matter of disposal of municipal properties by holding a public auction so as to attract funds from members interested in acquiring such rights as mandated by the rule in order to protect public revenue and enable the State Government to decide whether sanction of the State Government contemplated under Section 72 should or should not be given.

(2.) IN the circumstances and more appropriately there being no estoppel against statute, these petitions are without merit and are accordingly rejected. It is needless to state that if the petitioners have deposited monies with the 2nd respondent, are either entitled to recover the same together with interest in appropriate legal proceedings or may seek appropriation in the event of being the successful bidders in the auction of the rights to use the shops in the building.