B. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZURAI) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02.04.2013 issued by the first respondent as at Annexure -M to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for quashing the resolution dated 25.02.2013 insofar as it relates to subject No. 2 as at Annexure -F. The petitioner has further sought for mandamus to direct respondents No. 4 and 5 to hold public auction in accordance with law of the shop premises belonging to the temple. The brief facts are that the sixth respondent herein had been granted licence in respect of the premises belonging to the fifth respondent. On the sixth respondent succeeding in the auction that was conducted, the licence has been granted in her favour. The lease period which had been granted earlier in favour of the sixth respondent expired on 31.03.2013. Thereafter, by the impugned order at Annexure -M, the licence granted in favour of the fifth respondent has been extended for a period of three years on enhancement of the licence fee at 10% every year. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order dated 02.04.2013, whereby the licence has been extended, is before this Court assailing the said order.

(2.) THE respondents have sought to justify their action. It is contended that in respect of the properties belonging to the temple and which has been let out to the licensees/tenants, vide Rule 31(17), a provision is available in the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Rules, 2002 (for short the "Rules"), whereunder the lease/licence could be extended for one term. It is in that context contended that the sixth" respondent who had sought for extension before the expiry of three months of the licence has been granted the benefit of one extension and after the said period, certainly the auction would be conducted in respect of the said property.

(3.) IN that light, it is contended that the sixth respondent in fact has not sought for extension of the lease and her request in fact has not been made in accordance with law. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per Annexure -J, the Deputy Commissioner had addressed the communication to the Managing Committee of the Temple that it should be done by auction only and when the Deputy Commissioner has taken such decision, if at all the sixth respondent was aggrieved, the same could have been challenged. When that has not been done, any further recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner as contended by the respondents would not be justified. Hence, it is his case that in the absence of challenge to the communication at Annexure -J, any recommendation thereafter made by the Deputy Commissioner could not have been accepted by the Government and the extension could not have been made.