- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8087 OF 2025 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SRI.M.K.GOPAL S/O KRISHNEGOWDA,, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.2, T.B. EXTENTION, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DIST-571431 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH KUMAR NT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT EXCISE M.S.BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD DEPARTMENT, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA-571431 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE, NGO COLONY, WILSON GARDEN, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571431 5. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, NAGAMANGALA ZONE, NAGAMANGALA TOWN MANDYA DIST-571431 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OR CANCEL THE LETTER NO. EXE/NAMALA/KATTADA/1/2024-25 DTD 24.01.2025 ISSUED BY R-5 VIDE ANNX-H BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WP OR IN ALTERNATE DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONTINUE THE LEASE PERIOD WITH PETITIONER, WHEREIN THE PRESENT OFFICE IS WORKING IN PROPERTY BEARING NO. 22, NEW PID NO. 21-512-67 OLD KATHA NO. 3010/2752/2004, SITUATED AT 2ND WARD, T.B. EXTENSION EASTERN SIDE, B.M.ROAD, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is the owner of the immovable property bearing No.22, New PID No.21-512-67 [Old Katha No.3010/2752/2004], II Ward, T.B.Extension Eastern Side, B.M.Road, Nagamangala Town, Mandya District, and the fifth respondent has taken this property on lease. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fifth respondent's Communication dated 24.01.2025 [Annexure-H] informing the petitioner that its office is constrained to terminate the lease because the premises are found insufficient and the rentals are higher. Sri. N. T. Hareesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the fifth respondent may not terminate the lease during the subsistence of the lease period proposing to move to an alternate premises. The learned counsel emphasizes that the fifth respondent has failed to consider the representation filed for continuation of the lease. Sri. Manjunath B., the learned Additional - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13717 WP No. 8087 of 2025 Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances. This Court must opine that neither grounds will afford any reason to interfere with the fifth respondent's decision, and this Court must observe that if the fifth respondent's decision to terminate the contract is contrary to the contractual terms, the petitioner must work out his remedies in a properly instituted proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB