TOWN PANCHAYAT, SIDDAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the material on record. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with at the request of the petitioner.

(3.) In addition to reiterating the various contentions as urged in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned communication at Annexure-C dtd. 30/3/2021 in order to point out that the Deputy Commissioner has addressed the said communication to the Assistant Commissioner calling upon him to take necessary steps to conduct auction of the subject premises. It is also pointed out that in Annexures-E and E1 dtd. 21/3/2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, a condition has been inserted empowering and authorizing the respondents to act and function as a President for the purpose of conducting auction of the subject premises. In this context, learned counsel submits that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner does not have jurisdiction or authority of law to function or perform duties of a President for the purpose of conducting an auction particularly when the same is not forthcoming either in Sec.72(2) of the Municipality Act or Rules or any other provisions.