MOHAMMED NOORULLA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 15.06.2012 which is impugned at Annexure-Q to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to consider the proceedings in Revision Petition No.56/2012 for grant/renew the trade licence to the petitioner with reasonable conditions. The endorsement dated 10.11.2012 (Annexure-BB) is assailed in that circumstance.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the Proprietor of the business run in the name and style of M/s Bharath Chicken and Egg Centre in the shop premises bearing Municipal Assessment No. 822/2, situate in Channagiri Town, Davanagere District. The manner in which the petitioner has taken the premises on rent and also had obtained the trade licence issued by the concerned authority during the period of 14.02.2002 onwards has been adverted to in the petitioner. The details in that regard need not be considered in the instant petition since the same in any event is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority in Revision Petition No.56/2012. The said revision had arisen out of an endorsement dated 15.06.2012 issued whereby the request of the petitioner for renewal of the trade licence has been rejected by the Pattana Panchayath. During the pendency of the revision petition, the impugned order dated 10.11.2012 (Annexure- BB) was issued by the Pattana Panchayath to direct immediate closure of the shops wherein the petitioner was carrying on the business notwithstanding the pendency of the revision petition.

(3.) AT this juncture, since it is noticed that the revision petition against the rejection of the request for renewal of the licence is pending, respondents No. 2 and 3 in any event could not have precipitated the matter. It is in that circumstance, the interim order had been granted by this Court. The revision petition would have to be considered and disposed of by respondent No.4 in accordance with law. Therefore, until the revision petition is disposed of, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the interim order granted by this Court and the possession granted thereof.