SRI KRISHNA WEIGH BRIDGE Vs. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent passed an order dated 13-11-2014 granting 45 days time to vacate the premises and the said order has been challenged by the petitioner before the District Judge which is pending in M.A. No. 37 of 2014. The interim order sought for by the petitioner has not been considered. Hence, this writ petition is filed. The grounds urged by the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has violated Clause 10 of the Agreement as per Annexure-A - Agreement of Leave and License for weigh bridge issued under Rule 16(2) and the second ground urged is that as per Rule 5 of the Allotment Rules, the evidence has not been recorded and the procedure as it is required has not been followed.

(2.) As per Rule 10 of the Agreement of Leave and License-Annexure-A the petitioner should have been given 15 days notice, but the same has not been given by the respondents and further it is submitted that in view of Annexure-A license, he had invested huge amount by borrowing loan. Unless it is repaid he is not in a position to vacate the premises.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents-Cavettos submits that under the Rules, mainly Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, a tender notification has been issued calling for application to lease the premises which is in possession of the petitioner and the said tender notification was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 47229 of 2013 and this Court by its order dated 29th October, 2013 rejected the same on the ground that under the Rules, the Committee has got power only to renew the license for a period of 55 months, thereafter, it is not for the Authority to renew. Eleven months license was granted to the petitioner in the year January 2005 and 55 months has been expired and tender notification has been issued and as per the terms allotment has been given to different persons, who had preferred W.P. No. 31407 of 2014 and this Court by order dated 22-9-2014 issued a mandamus to the respondents to execute lease in their favour. Under these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is to be rejected.