HALTSONS TRUST BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, petitioner has sought the relief in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17-7-1997, bearing No. 2235 of 1997-98 (Annexure-J to the writ petition ). Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to rectify the defects pointed out by the petitioner in the representation dated 25-6-1996 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) and for grant of such other appropriate remedies or reliefs as this Court deems fit.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that as per the petitioner's case, petitioner has been running the business in the name and style of M/s. Loodhia Traders, R. M. C. Yard, bangalore. Petitioner's case is that he applied for transfer of the site No. 666 in the new lay-out of R. M. C. Yard, Yeshwanthapur in its name from M/s. S. Thimmappa and sought for permission for construction on the said vacant site for marketing in agricultural produce in the market yard. Petitioner has annexed the copies of those representations dated 3-9-1986, 31-1-1987 and 10-11-1996 as Annexures-A, A-1 and A-2. According to the petitioner's case, the 3rd respondent-market committee accorded the permission vide its order dated 26-8-1987 subject to the conditions which have been enumerated therein and mentioned in paragraph 1 of the writ petition and in pursuance of communication, the sale deed was registered after necessary payment being made by the petitioner. There was some dispute about under valuation and according to the petitioner vide order dated 2-11-1988 the same was remanded back for decision afresh to the Special Deputy Commissioner for detection of undervaluation, by the I Additional City Civil Sessions Judge at bangalore who had set aside the original order passed by the special Deputy Commissioner earlier. Petitioner's further case is that the petitioner as he had already deposited 25% was called upon to pay the remaining balance of 75% within 15 days from the date of communication dated 16-5-1989 and the petitioner did made necessary payments and subsequently vide cheque No. 978701, dated 27-5-1989. That petitioner paid the full amount of the premises bearing No. 666 under 25 : 75 loan scheme. The possession of the shop was delivered to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent on 19-6-1996. Petitioner's further case is that he found certain defects in the shop-cum-godown and made a representation on 25-6-1996. According to the petitioner's case, petitioner made several requests to the respondent to remove the defects and dispose of that representation. But nothing was done. Petitioner's case is that in the present premises namely premises bearing No. 666, the accommodation is meagre for marketing which includes storing. To indicate his quantum of business, the petitioner has stated the annual assessed turnover for the years 1994-95, 1993-94 and 1992-93. Petitioner's case is that he had paid upto date market fee to the market committee and no balance is outstanding. Petitioner has further stated that the petitioner received an order dated 17-7-1997, a copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-J8 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was informed that the allotment of shop-cum-godown No. 666 was being forfeited and the respondent 3 State wanted to take back the possession of the premises from the petitioner. Petitioner's further case is stated in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition that he did not receive any communication or notice dated 26-4-1997 mentioned in the impugned order. It had been clearly averred as under. "the alleged notice dated 26-4-1997 referred to in the order dated 17-7-1997, as per Annexure-J, has not been received by the petitioner". The same averment is also averred in Paragraph 13. Petitioner's case is that his shop was being forfeited in violation of principles of natural justice without giving them any notice about the forfeiture of licence. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order impugned dated 17-7-1997 as is being in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.

(3.) ON notice being issued, respondent 3 filed a common statement of objections supported by affidavits on 17-9-1997, under the Writ Petition Nos. 22204, 22210 and 22887 of 1997. In paragraph 11 of the statement of objections dealing with the matter relating to Writ Petition No. 20887 of 1997, it has been averred that; "after the Market Committee constructed shop-cum-go-downs on site No. 666 by investment of 75% of the amount, the possession thereof was delivered to the petitioner on 19-6-1996 under an agreement". So far upto this stage, there appears there is no dispute between the parties that possession was delivered on 19-6-1996. In the statement of objections it has further been averred that.