D RAJU Vs. COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the resolution at Annexure-A, dated 9.4.2012 passed by Arogya Raksha Samithi of Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura, by which respondent No.8 is permitted to continue to run Nandini Milk Booth in the Campus of Government Hospital, Kanakapura Town, Ramanagara District.

(2.) THE records reveal that an order came to be passed in favour of respondent No.8 as per Annexure-R4, dated 26.3.2010 in respect of running the Milk Booth in the Compound of Government Hospital, M.G.Road, Kanakapura. Nandini Booth is having measurement of 12'x15'. As per the said order, respondent No.8 started running Nandini Milk Booth. Prior to authorisation of Milk Booth in favour of respondent No.8, petitioner was granted authorisation of running another Milk Booth situated at M.G.Road, Kanakapura. However, the said Milk Booth was demolished for the purpose of widening the said road. Taluk Panchayat decided to shift the Milk Booth to the Compound of the Government Hospital, Kanakapura. Consequently, Milk Booth was established in the Compound of the Government Hospital. As aforementioned, respondent No.8 has been running the said Milk Booth since the order dated 26.3.2010. The said order dated 26.3.2010 was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in WP.No.2716/2011. The writ petition came to be allowed on 17.2.2012 with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the application of the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 herein for running the Milk Book in question, on merits and in accordance with law. After consideration, the impugned resolution is passed as per Annexure-A by Arogya Raksha Samithi of Kanakapura Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura continuing the grant in favour of respondent No.8.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of respondent No.8 that the resolution is passed by the concerned authority as per law taking into consideration various factors, including the fact that respondent No.8 has paid the rent and is running the Milk Booth. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 draws the attention of the Court to paragraph-3 of the resolution that the petitioner is selling milk packets at M.G.Road and therefore he is not an unemployed person. He denies the contention of the petitioner that the resolution passed is politically motivated.