- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 34260 OF 2018 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. BANGALORE KIDNEY FOUNDATION A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1882, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CA-6, 15TH MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU-70 THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES 2. DR. P. SRIRAM AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O MR. P. PADMANATHAN, RESIDING AT NO.306/8, 'KAUSTUBHA', 40TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-82 3. MR. H.R. BINOD AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O MR. RANGADORE, RESIDING AT NO.11, 'RANGA', 15TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-78 4. MR. P. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O MR. PADMANATHAN, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 RESIDING AT FLAT NO.103, SOBHA OPAL, 39TH CROSS, IV T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041. 5. MR. B.S. SHANKARANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O MR. B. SREEKANTHAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.208, RAJANIGANDHA APARTMENTS, 21 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU-01 6. MR. SUNIL KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O MR. C. PADMANABHAN, AT CONFIDENT GROUP, CONFIDENT HOUSE SEATTLE TOWERS, BTM LAYOUT 4, BTM LAYOUT, RING ROAD I STAGE, BENGALURU-68 7. MR. K.N. PRABHASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. K.N. NARAYANA RAO, RESIDING AT CONFIDENT GROUP, S-2, NARAYANA, NO.25, MISSION ROAD, SHAMARAO COMPOUND, BENGALURU-27 8. MR. KARTIK SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O DR. P. SRIRAM, RESIDING AT NO.306/8, KAUSTUBHA, 40TH CROSS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-82 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.V. NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-20. 2. M/S NEPHRO UROLOGY TRUST A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1882, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1/6, CHINMAYA APARTMENT, PUTTANNA ROAD, BENGALURU-64 THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES. 3. DR. VENKATESH KRISHNAMOORTHY AGED MAJOR, S/O MR. C.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY, RESIDING AT NO.301, 39TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-02 4. MR. K. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O MR. C.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY, RESIDING AT NO.1/6, CHINMAYA APARTMENTS PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-04 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 5. DR. PRASANNA VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O DR. M.R. KANTHIRAJ, RESIDING AT 3282, ONE BANGALORE WEST, NO.1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU-10 6. MR. M. RAMACHANDRA S/O MR. MUNISAMAPPA, NO.4, 13TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. 7. DR. KANTHIRAJ M.R., S/O LATE RAMASWAMY NAIDU, RESIDING AT OLD NO.51, NEW NO.50 M.C. ROAD, AMBUR-635 802 VELLOR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, INDIA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SIDDARTHSUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5 TO R7; R4 IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 BEARING SUBJECT NO.117/17 PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RENEW THE PERIOD OF LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT TRUST (ANNEXURE-T) AND THE C.A.SITE LEASE AGREEMENT (RENEWAL) DATED 28.02.2018 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.BDA-1-07871-2017-18 AND STORED ON C.D.NO.BDAD234, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE CITY EXECUTED AND REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY IN FAVOUR OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TRUST (ANNEXURE-R-1); AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner being an original allottee of a civic amenity site No.6 (hereinafter referred to as `subject CA site') situated at 15th Main, 11th Cross, Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru-560 070, seeking following reliefs: "A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing (i) the order dated 31.08.2017 bearing subject No.117/17 passed by the Committee of the Respondent Authority to renew the period of lease in favour of the Respondent Trust (Annexure T) and (ii) the C.A. Site Lease Agreement (Renewal) dated 28.02.2018 registered as Document No.BDA-1-07871-2017-18 and stored on C.D.No.BDAD234, in the office of the Additional District Registrar, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore City executed and registered by the first Respondent Authority in favour of the second Respondent Trust (Annexure 'R-1'); - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the first Respondent Authority, herein, directing it to consider the representation dated 01.04.2017 (Annexure E) of the Petitioner Trust and renew the lease agreement dated 10.04.1987 vide Annexure B executed by the first Respondent in favour of the Petitioner Trust, herein. C. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just including the cost of this Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing submits that petitioner is a Trust who had been allotted the subject CA site in terms of a lease agreement dated 10.04.1987 for a period of 30 years commencing from the date of issue of Possession Certificate dated 03.06.1987. After having obtained the lease, petitioner trust had established an hospital. However, for the purpose of administration and management, the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 28.07.1999 as per Annexure-H to the petition, handing over management, administration and operational responsibilities to the private respondent No.2 which is known and called as M/s.Nephro Urology Centre. It appears due to non-compliance with the terms of the lease, the respondent-BDA had cancelled the lease and however, subsequently, had restored the same. The original lease period - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 of 30 years is stated to have expired on 03.06.2017, whereupon, a requisition was made by both petitioner as well as respondent No.2 seeking renewal. 3. That the respondent-BDA by its Resolution dated 31.08.2017 with subject No.117/2017 declined to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner but however, renewed the lease in the name of private respondent No.2 on the premise that MOU had been entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and also on the premise that it is the respondent No.2 who was paying the lease amount. It is this resolution which is called in question by the petitioner in this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the BDA submits that the renewal that is made in favour of respondent No.2 is purely based on the resolution which has been questioned in this petition which in turn has been passed based on the Memorandum of Understanding which had been furnished by the respondent No.2 produced along with the statement of objection as per Annexure-R-2. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA however further submits that there is no specific provision to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 renew the lease in the name of respondent No.2 based on the MOU as done in this case. 5. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the MOU which is referred in the statement of objection is a fabricated document and the same cannot be relied upon. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there had been an arbitration proceedings in which relief as sought for in this petition has already been granted and the an award has been passed therein reserving liberty to the parties to pursue the matter subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. He refers to the said award in A.C.No.124/2017 produced along with statement of objection. 7. Heard and perused the records. 8. What is emanating from the records and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties is that originally lease in respect of the subject CA site had been granted in favour of petitioner-Trust for a period of 30 years commencing from 10.04.1987 expiring on 22.04.2017. It is also on record that petitioner apparently entered into MOU as per Annexure-H - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 to the writ petition (while respondent No.1 claims MOU as per Annexure-R2 to the statement of objection). By a resolution impugned in this petition referred to above, the respondent- BDA has resolved to renew the lease in favour of respondent No.2. The said resolution is extracted hereunder: "¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉUÉ n¥Ààt «µÀAiÀÄ:- ªÉÄ|| ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¥ÀgÀªÁV dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ºÉZï.©.¹.J¸ï. §qÁªÀuÉ (¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ) ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå.6 gÀ£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢ü £À«ÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. ***** ªÉÄ|| ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¥ÀgÀªÁV dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ºÉZï.©.¹.J¸ï. §qÁªÀuÉ (¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ) ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå.6 gÀ£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.06.1987gÀAzÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. 596) J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹, 30 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ªÀÄvÉÛ 30 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (zÀQët)gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤Ãr, ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀzÀAvÉ QrßUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɹPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 26.05.2017gÀ°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¹.J. ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå 06C£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.06.1987gÀAzÀÄ 30 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀĪÀgÀÄ 1999gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÀÆ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝ ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¤tð¬Ä¹zÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ Sri.Venkatesh Krishna Murthy, Senior Most Consultant for Urology and Trustee for NU Trust gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹, ¸ÀzÀj ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ°è J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ JAzÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.02.2000gÀAzÀÄ MOU M¥ÀàAzÀ MqÀA§rPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj¤AzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ ¸ÁV¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ, ¸ÀzÀj ¹.J.¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ©.©.JA.¦.UÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀjAzÀ¯Éà ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄÆ® PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¹.J. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ J¯Áè DUÀÆ-ºÉÆÃUÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÁgÀt PÀvÀðgÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄAvÉ, dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ºÉZï.©.¹.J¸ï (¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ) §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¹.J.¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå.06 UÀÄwÛUÉ - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß J£ï.AiÀÄÄ.læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀjUÉ £À«ÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄAvÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¢ðµÀÖ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÉÆA¢UÉ MqÀA§rPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÀÄzÉà ºÁUÀÆ Qrß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ§ºÀÄzÉà JA§ §UÉÎ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ:- ªÉÄ|| Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ MOU ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¹.J.¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀÆtð PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¹Ö£ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj MOU ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÉÄ|| Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.1987gÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ (6) C£ÀÄß G®èAX¹zÀAvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀé/læ¸ïÖ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÉÆÛà CzÉà GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ¹.J. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÀAzÀÄ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹, CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ºÉƸÀzÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ (¹J ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉ ¤AiÀiÁªÀiÁUÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ) 1989gÀ ¤AiÀiªÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ wêÀiÁð£À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÀÄzÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄ|| ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¥ÀgÀªÁV dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ºÉZï.©.¹.J¸ï. §qÁªÀuÉ (¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ) ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå 6gÀ£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ºÀAaPÉ GzÉÝñÀPÉÌ ¹ J ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ §¼À¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄAr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¸À»/- ¸À»/- ¸À»/- PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ¨ÉAC¥Áæ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¨ÉAC¥Áæ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¨ÉAC¥Áæ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.08.2017 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:117/17 597) ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄAr¸À¯ÁzÀ n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ZÀZÉðAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ, ªÉÄ|| ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉõÀ£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ UÀȺÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ §qÁªÀuÉ (¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ) ¹.J.¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå-- C£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢ü £À«ÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀAzÀgÀÄ. ¢ÃWÀð ZÀZÉðAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄ||¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Qrß ¥sËAqÉõÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄ|| ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.02.2000 gÀAzÀÄ MOU M¥ÀàAzÀ MqÀA§rPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ, ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ£À ºÉ¸Àj¤AzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¹J ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀjAzÀ¯Éà ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ¹.J.¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄÆ® GzÉÝñÀPÉÌ ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ gÀªÀgÀÄ §¼À¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄ|| J£ï.AiÀÄÄ læ¸ïÖ £ÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀj¸À®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸À»/- CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, ¨ÉA.C.¥Áæ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ" - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 9. Perusal of the aforesaid resolution do not indicate specific provisions of law under which the same has been passed except referring to MOU purportedly furnished by respondent No.2 which has been vehemently denied and objected to by the petitioner as noted above. 10. Further since the respondent-BDA has not pointed out the provisions of law to which the said resolution is traceable and also in view of the fact that original lessee having consciously entered into MOU handing over the hospital to respondent No.2, the question that would arise for consideration is whether a lease in respect of the subject CA site under the fact situation of the matter could be renewed in the name of the petitioner or in the name of respondent No.2. Since the resolution passed is as vague as it could be, that too without referring to any provisions of law providing for the same, and without adverting to the merits of the claims and counter claims made by the parties to this petition, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to the respondent-BDA who shall after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties, pass appropriate reasoned order referring to specific provisions of law under which such order could be passed within an outer limit of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1258 WP No. 34260 of 2018 twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Ordered accordingly. The petition is disposed of. 12. Since the parties are represented by their Counsel, they shall appear before the Estate Officer of the respondent -BDA on 27.01.2025. 13. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits of the case. All contentions are kept open. 14. The impugned resolution is kept in abeyance till appropriate orders as directed above is passed by the Estate Officer of the respondent-BDA. 15. It is made clear that respondent -authority shall not interfere or cause any obstruction or disturbance in respondent No.2 carrying out with its operation till passing of orders as directed above. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37