SPEEDWAY IMPEX Vs. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is carrying on his business of running studio in a rented premises wherein he had displayed a name board prominently in front of his shop, has approached this Court praying for issue of mandamus or certiorari directing the respondents, their workmen, servants, agents henchmen and/or any person/s claiming through or under the respondents etc. , from in any manner interfering with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing no. 7/3, Bull Temple Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore. Petition averments are that the Revenue inspector, 2nd respondent, working in the 1st respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike had acted in a high handed manner and had helped petitioner's rival in getting the board removed.

(2.) IT is the plea of the petitioner that there was a dispute between the petitioner and another tenant in the same building in the first floor, on the question of the petitioner displaying his trade name and board and in view of certain objections and interference by the said person who is impleaded as 4th respondent to this petition, petitioner was compelled to file a civil suit O. S. No. 3111 of 2004 and in that suit, the Civil Court has granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the 4th respondent from obstructing or removing the plaintiffs trade name board displayed in front of his shop and that order was in operation till the next date of hearing i. e. , 1-6-2004. It is the averments of the petitioner that immediately the passing of this order, the 4th respondent in a high handed manner removed the board forcibly on 26-4-2004. It is in such circumstances petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) SRI S. S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had acted in a high handed manner, that he has acted forcibly and removed the display board of the petitioner only because of the power and authority vested in him as an official of the 1st respondent-Mahanagara Palike and that it is a case of gross misuse of his official power, that exercise of such power by the 2nd respondent virtually helped the 4th respondent who was otherwise bound by the Court order to get over the injunction that had been granted by the Civil Court and in such circumstances it is very necessary for this Court to interfere with the same even in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 particularly for ensuring that the rule of law prevails and the high handed action is frowned upon. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned action is not proceeded with by any notice or opportunity of hearing and as such petitioner is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction.