SRI. K.S. ABDUL AZEEZ S/O HAJI K.S. MOIDIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHRAF MANZIL JEPPU KODPADY ROAD, MANGALROE-575002 Vs. THE MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION MANGALORE D.K. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of law and that of fact arise for "decision making, hence with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are finally heard and disposed of by this order. Petitioner in W.P. 22760/11 claims to have a license to use the immovable property belonging to the 1st respondent - Mangalore City Corporation, for short 'MCC' for a period of one year, issued during the year 1998 and renewed there afterwards, while the petitioner in W.P. 31425/10 claims to be the sub -licensee of the aforesaid immovable property. It appears that the 2nd respondent Standing Committee of the 1st respondent inspected the premises and observed that the sub -licensee in possession was carrying on business and accordingly passed a resolution to continue him as a licensee of the said premises on payment of a non -refundable deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and Rs. 200/ - per day for use and occupation. That resolution when called in question in W.P. 1331/07 by the licensee, the petitioner in W. P. 22760/11, a learned Single Judge by order dt. 7/9/2007 set aside the resolution and remitted the proceeding for fresh consideration to the Standing Committee with a direction to hear and dispose of the matter within 8 weeks after extending fair and reasonable opportunity to both the parties and pass a reasoned order while parties were directed to maintain status -quo. There afterwards it further appears that the Standing Committee passed a resolution dt. 25/9/2008 aggrieved by which the licensee filed W.P. 10785/2009 and a learned Single Judge by order dt. 21/1/2010, recording the submission of the learned Counsel for MCC allowed the writ petition, set aside the resolution of the Standing Committee and remitted the proceeding for a fresh consideration, compliance with the order in W.P. 1331/2007.

(2.) THE Standing Committee, it is stated by both the petitioners, passed a resolution dt 6/7/2010 - Annex. A. directing a public auction for the right to use the premises. Hence these petitions.

(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel for MCC and the Standing Committee, respondents 1 & 2, submits that in the earlier writ petitions, it was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, that disposal of properties and interest therein belonging to the Corporation ought to be in compliance with Sec. 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short the Act'. Learned Counsel further hastens to add that under Sec. 176 of the Act, a person taking on license property belonging to the Municipal Corporation is not entitled to sub -let and if so done, tantamount to breach of the statute. According to the learned Counsel, neither of the petitioners are entitled to continue to use the premises in question as they have no authority of law to do so and therefore they be directed to pay damages for use and occupation from the date of expiry of the license. Learned Counsel hastens to add that the resolutions of the 2nd respondent passed earlier have since been set aside in the aforesaid orders of the learned Single Judge and therefore no resolution is in force permitting the sub -licensee to continue to be in possession of the premises. It is lastly contended that the resolution calling in question in these petitions are strictly in accordance with law directing a public auction in which both the petitioners may participate and if the bid is the highest, would be entitled to the use and occupation of the premises, subject to acceptance of the bid by the Corporation.