JAICHAND Vs. TOWN MUNICIPALITY ROBERTSONPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are residing in the area over which Robersonpet Town Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the 'Council') has jurisdiction. There are two shop premises belonging to the Council situate in a busy part of the said Municipal Area. That on 23-7-1971 the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, in exercise of his power under S.306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), suspended the order of the President of the Council tg dispose of the lease-hold rights in respect of two shops under a private treaty as he; was of the opinion that it could be done only after due publication of the intention of the Council to do so. Contrary to the said decision of the Deputy Commr, the President allotted the two premises on 17-6-1972 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 on lease at Rs.75 each per month. The Council did not advertise that the leasehold rights of the premises in question would be disposed of as required by law before doing so. It however, ratified the action of the President on 31-1-1973. The petitioners who were interested in securing the lease-hold rights have filed these petitions questioning the validity of the grant in favour of respondents 2 and 3. They have contended that the premises in question would have fetched much more than Rs.75 per month if the leasehold rights had been disposed of after giving due publicity and that respondents 2 and 3 have been allowed to have an unlawful advantage over other persons by the secret arrangement entered into between them and the Council.

(2.) It should be mentioned at this stage that the petitioners instituted a suit in OS. 94 of 1973 on the file of the Munsiff, KGF questioning the validity of the grant of lease made in favour of respondents 2 and 3 and they obtained an order of temporary injunction. The said temporary injunction, was vacated by this Court in CRP.93 of 1974. Immediately thereafter the petitioners filed the above writ petitions.

(3.) The Council-respondent 1 has filed statement of objections. In para 4 of the statement of objections it is stated as follows :