L NAGARATNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 13.11.2014 impugned at Annexure 'J' to the petition. The fixation of rent at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. sought to be justified under the said order at Annexure 'J' is prayed to be quashed.

(2.) The petitioners are the owners of private godowns, which were constructed by them on securing loans. The respondents have utilized the godowns belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of storing food grains such as paddy and jowar for distribution to the Ration Card Holders under the scheme "Anna Bhagya". The petitioners contend that the rate of rent fixed at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. by the respondents is arbitrary and meager. In that light, the petitioners, at the first instance had made a request to enhance the amount by filing a representation. Since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P. Nos. 5909-5913/2014. This Court by the order dated 04.03.2014 had taken note of the grievance of the petitioners and had directed that the representation be considered. Pursuant to the same, the respondents have considered the representation and through the impugned endorsement vide order dated 13.11.2014 have informed the petitioners that the rent fixed at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. is justified and the request of the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is in that view, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) The respondents have filed the objection statement seeking to justify their action. It is contended that the requirement of the godowns had existed as the food grains were to be stored for the purpose of public distribution and other godowns belonging to different owners had also been utilized by the respondents and in all cases where the godowns were situated at Davangere, the rent had been fixed at Rs.5/- per sq. ft., which has been accepted by the said owners and in that regard, the list of the godowns and the rent as has been fixed and accepted by the owners, is also relied as per Annexure Rs. R1'. It is also contended that the claim as put forth by the petitioners by referring to the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, would not be justified since the fixation therein is not in the same manner as has been done in the present case. It is therefore, contended that the prayer as made in the petitions is not sustainable.