- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 110279 OF 2017 (GM-PP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 107276 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION NO. 109881 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION NO. 110106 OF 2017 IN WP NO. 110279/2017 BETWEEN: 1. PRATHAM MAHILA SWA SAHAYA SANGH, R/O: MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI -581401, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, LAXMI W/O MANJUNATH CHITRAKAR, AGED: 35 YEARS, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI, DIST: (U.K)- 581401. 2. PRASHANT S/O DEVAPPA SHETTY, AGED: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SUBHASCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI, (U.K.) -581401. 3. PRITAM S/O NARASIHMA BARKUR, AGED: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SUBHASCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI -581401. 4. KISHOR BABU SHANBHAG, AGED: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SUBHASCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K.) -581401. 5. ARJUN S/O VASANT NETREKAR, AGED: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SUBHASCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 SIRSI (U.K.) -581401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARWAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA. 2. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, D.C. OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA -581301. 3. CITY MUNICIPALITY SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, SIRSI (U.K) -581401. 4. COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, SIRSI (U.K.) -581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED:23.06.2016 AT NO.DUDC-3/Viva-56/2016-17 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:08.04.2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AT NO.DUDC-3/Viva/105/2016-17 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D. IN WP NO. 107276/2017 BETWEEN: SYNDICATE BANK, C.M.C. BRANCH, SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY ITS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 BRANCH MANAGER, MADHUKESHWAR S/O SHIVARAM HEGDE, AGED. 34 YEARS, R/O. SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. NORTH KANARA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER C.M.C. SIRSI, DIST. NORTH KANNARA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARWAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KARWAR DIST. NORTH KANNARA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2, SRI. LINGESH V. KATEEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED:23.06.2016 AT NO.DUDC-3/VIVA-56/2016-17 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED:28.02.2017 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AT NO.NA SA SHI/LEASE VIBHAGA/TINO/VIVA/2016- 17 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E. QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED:13.06.2017 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANO. NASASHI/LEASE/ MA.BADIGE/VIVA/2017-18 MARKED AT ANNEXURE- H. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO FACILITATE THE REGISTRATION OF LEASE DEED DATED:04.08.2008 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 IN WP NO. 109881/2017 BETWEEN: 1. PETER KALISTH REGO, AGED. 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 11, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 2. VITTAL GOPALKRISHNA PANDIT, AGED. 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 20, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 3. GOPALKRISHNA VITTAL PANDIT, AGED. 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 15, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 4. MRATYUNJAYA V. REDDI, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 13, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 5. KIRAN MANOHAR KAMAT, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 10, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 6. MADHAVA PATAGAR, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 16, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 7. ANAND MAHADEV NAIK, AGED. 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 21, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 8. DHARMA VITTU NAIK, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 14, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 9. GOKULDAS RAYA PAI, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 R/O: SHOP NO. 07, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 10. WILFRED A DISOZA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 17, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 11. VIJAYENDRA VENKATACHAL BHAT, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 18, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 12. AMBARAM LACHARAMJI PATEL, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 03, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 13. LAXMANRAM PATEL AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 5 AND 6, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 14. KESHAVRAM KUPPAJI CHOUDHARI AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 02, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 15. LALARAM B. PATEL, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 01, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 16. FAZALUR REHAMAN KASIMBA KITTUR, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 27, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 17. BASAVARAJ K. KALAPPANAVAR, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 22, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 18. ARUN NARAYAN NAIK, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 R/O : SHOP NO. 24, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 19. WILSON ANTHON DISOZA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 26, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 20. GANAPATI KANNA NAIK, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 25, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 21. SMT. SWEET WILSON DISOZA AGED 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 19, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 22. SMT. JAYALAXMI D. SHETTY, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 23, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 23. SMT. SAVITA RAVIKUMAR PANCHAL, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 15 AND 16, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 24. VIGNESHWAR NARAYAN NAIK, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 13, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 25. SMT. NAGAVENI VIGNESHWAR NAIK, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 12, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 26. CHENNAVEERA C. GANIGER, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 10, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 27. SMT. TULSI YALLAPPA PAVASKAR, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 R/O: SHOP NO. 17, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 28. DINESH C. MASHALDI, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO. 05, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 29. SHANKAR C. DIVEKAR, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 03 AND 04, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 30. ABHEYSINGH JAISINGH TAKUR, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 08, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 31. MOHANLAL TALKAJI BHATIA, AGED MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 14, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). 32. RAVI KESHAV SHETTY, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 01, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 33. ASHIA ABDUL SHAIKH, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 02, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 34. LESI ANTHON RODRIGAS, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 104, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 35. G. V. SHETTI, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 04, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 36 SHANTA RAVIKUMAR KOTEGAR, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 07, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 37. VENKATESH NAGESH NARVEKAR, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 102 AND 103, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 38. KAVITA ANAND GOULI, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 03, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 39. YOGENDRA RAMAKRISHNA BILAGIKAR, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 09, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 40. YOGITA PADIYAR, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 10, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 41. ANAND SHIVAJI GOULI AGED 47 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 08, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 42. ISHWAR C. NAIK AGED 47 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 05, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 43. K. SAYYED, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 101, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 44. SMT. N. R. TRIVENI, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC : PROFESSIONAL, R/O : SHOP NO. 108, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 45. FRANCIS AGNEL DSOZA, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 105, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 46. JAYARAM SONNA NAIK, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 106, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 47. GOLAYYA SHIVAYYA HIREMATH, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 109, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI (U.K). 48. SHANKAR RITTI, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 22, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 49. SANTOSH VITTAL NAIK, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 23, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 50. KRISHNA HANUMANTAPPA BALEGAR, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 04, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 51. SHOBA VINAYAK BANTWALKAR, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 AGED 39 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 38, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 52. HARISH VINAYAK KANCHUGAR, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 37, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 53. HEMA VISHWANATH KULKARNI, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 5 and 6, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 54. IQBAL AHAMAD MULLA, AGED 69 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 111, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 55. SHASHIKANT DATTATREYA PANDIT, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 106, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 56. GOUTAM VASANT BARKUR, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 101, SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE COMPLEX, SIRSI (U.K). 57. IDURS S/O HUSSAIN KHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : SHOP NO. 11, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SHIVAJI CHOWK, SIRSI (U.K). …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARWAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 KARWAR. UTTARA KANNADA. 2. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SIRSI- 581401. 3. COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SIRSI, SIRSI- 581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1, SRI. N.S.KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED: 23.06.2016 AT NO.DUDC-3/Viva-56/2016-17 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.04.2017 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDNET NO. DUDC-3/Viva/105/2016-17 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D. IN WP NO. 110106/2017 BETWEEN: 1. RAJESH V. SHETTY, AGED: 40 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SIRSI, (U.K.) -581401. 2. K. ABDUL HAMID, AGED: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.11, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SIRSI, (U.K.) -581401. 3. MANJUNATH S/O RAMAKRISHNA NAIK, AGED: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.111, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SIRSI, (U.K.)-581401. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 4. MANJULA S. AMIN, AGED: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.06, KUDSEMP MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, OLD FIRE STATION, SIRSI, (U.K.)- 581401. 5. SEEMA W/O SHRIKANT PANDIT AGED: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.106, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SUBHASCHANDRA COMPLEX, SIRSI, (U.K.)-581401. 6. H.C. NAGARAJAYYA S/O CHIKKABAIRAYYA, AGED: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.2 AND 3, SUBHASCHANDRA COMPLEX, SIRSI, (U.K.)-581401. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED PERSON GANGADHAR B.M. R/O: SHOP NO.2 AND 3, SUBHASCHANDRA COMPLEX, SIRSI, (U.K.)-581401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARWAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. CITY MUNICIPALITY SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, SIRSI -581401. 3. COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY, SIRSI -581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1, SRI. SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED:23.06.2016 AT NO.DUDC-3/Viva-56/2016-17 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:08.04.2017 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AT NO.DUDC-3/Viva/105/2016-17 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners in all these cases are persons who are in occupation of certain shops in the Municipal Complex of Shivaji Chowk, Sirsi District or any other place coming within the precincts of the Sirsi Municipal Council. The issue in the lis revolves around the revision of the rent with retrospective effect. In the first matter, W.P.No.110279/2017, the learned counsel Sri.S.V.Yaji representing the respondent-Municipality would submit that what is challenged in the said case, is only an internal communication and no notice even directing revision of rent with retrospective effect is made against the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 petitioners. Therefore he would submit that it is the writ petition that is premature. Insofar as other cases are concerned, it is an admitted fact that there have been notices issued to the occupants of the shops in the respective places, which come within, as observed hereinabove, in the precincts of the Town Municipal Council, Sirsi. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.105617/2016 disposed on 31.01.2024 has held as follows: 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notices which are in the nature of orders passed by R3 dated 16.06.2016 at No.PaPunU/ Ta.Ve/ VeVa/60/2015-16/184 as per Annexures D to D9 respectively and the impugned order passed by R2 dated 30.05.2016 at Annexure-E. b. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the award of costs in the interest of justice and equity. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 2. The respondent No.3-Pattan Panchayath constructed shops on Bell Road in Yellapur Twon of Uttara Kannada District under I.D.S.M.T. Scheme. A tender having been invited by way of paper publication issued by respondent No.3 on 18.10.2006. An auction was held on 14.11.2006 where some of the petitioners participated in respect of shops bearing No.1 to 6 and were declared as successful bidders. The auction in respect of shops bearing No.6 to 12 was held on 28.2.2007 in pursuance of a publication dated 14.2.2007 when some of the petitioners were declared successful bidders. In all the petitioners were successful in respect of shops bearing No.1 to 8 and 10 to 12 under the aforesaid two tender notifications. 3. In furtherance thereof, the petitioners made a deposit of non-refundable amounts and have been making payment of monthly license fees. The license being for a period of twenty years, in terms of the license agreement executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners were served a notice by respondent No.3 on 16.6.2016 enhancing the license fee retrospectively from the date of issuance of license as also levied interest at rate of 8% per annum on the enhanced license fee. It is challenging the said notices dated 16.6.2016 issued by respondent No.3 at - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 Annexure-D to D9 that the petitioner’s initially approached this Court. 5. Notice having been issued, appearance having been made for respondent No.3 in the statement of objections it was contended that the aforesaid notices at Annexures-D to D9 were issued on the basis of direction by the respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner dated 30.5.2016 which was produced as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections and it was contended that the Deputy Commissioner having found the auction process to have been conducted contrary to the applicable rules had initiated disciplinary proceeding against those persons and had directed the respondent No.3 to collect enhanced license fee and interest thereon and as such it was contended that it is on the basis of the said instructions/directions of respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner that the impugned orders at Annexures-D to D9 had been passed. In that view of the matter notices at Annexures-D to D9 were issued. It is in that background that the petitioner sought for amendment to challenge the communication/order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 3.05.2016 which came to be allowed, which is now made the part of the petition at Annexure-D. 6. Sri.A.P.Hegde Janmane., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the auctions having been conducted in the year 2007 in pursuance of paper publications, the general public having - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 participated in the said auctions, the petitioners being declared successful, license agreements having been executed in their favour and the petitioners making payment of all the due amounts thereon, including the enchantment at the rate of 10% every three years there is no default committed by the petitioners and there is no power vested either with respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 to unilaterally enhance the license fee in a retrospective manner. Any enhancement would have to be in terms of license agreement and not otherwise. The Deputy Commissioner not being authorized/empowered to issue the directions in terms of Annexure-E and the Pattan Panchayath not being authorized to enhance the license fee retrospectively. Both the Annexure-E and D series are required to be quashed. 7. Sri.Dinesh Kulkarni., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that respondent No.3 has acted in terms of directions of the Deputy Commissioner which they are bound to do and as such no fault can be found with the issuance of Annexure-D to D9. 8. Learned AGA submits that respondent No.2 has issued Annexure-E in the interest of public exchequer having come to know that the license fee had been fixed for a lessor amount then what the property would have fetched and it is in that background that the respondent No.2 has directed the Pattan Panchayath to enhance the rentals retrospectively as per the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 actual market value as also collect interest thereon since the petitioner had availed the benefit of paying lesser license fee. 9. Learned AGA submitted that it is in the interest of the auction bidders that only enhancement has been made and the cancellation has not been affected and as such no fault can be found in the direction of the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Heard SRI.A.P.Hegde Janmane., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Ashok Kattemani., learned counsel respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Dinesh Kulkarni., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Perused papers. 11. However, laudable an action to be initiated by an authority is concerned the said objective has to be only achieved by following the applicable law and the procedure thereof. The Deputy Commissioner apparently has come to a conclusion that there is a lapse in the manner in which the auction is conducted in the year 2006 and 2007. But however, there is no particular finding in Annexure-E that the petitioners were complicit in such lapses and/or that the petitioners in collusion with the officers of respondent No.3 have defrauded respondent No.3. The Deputy Commissioner has found lapses in the manner in which the officers of respondent No.3 have functioned as regards which disciplinary enquiry proceedings have already been initiated against those officers and no action has been taken against the petitioners. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 12. The auction of the shops having been conducted in pursuance of a public tender and general public having participated in the said tender. It is the highest amount that was offered which has been considered by respondent No.3 and license issued. 13. If at all, the rentals that were fixed was at a lower end, in an auction the bid offer could have been received for higher amount from the general public who had participated. Thus, merely on an assumption or an impression that the license fee has been fixed at a lessor amount then what the shops would have fetched would not in my considered opinion lead to respondent No.2 to have issued the direction to respondent No.3 to retrospectively fix the license fee and collect interest thereon. Moreso, as afore observed there is no particular allegation against the petitioners being complicit in the lapses by the officers of the respondent. 14. In that view of the matter, when public auction has been conducted, general public having participated, the highest bids having been accepted and the license agreement has been executed in favour of such bidder it was but required for the authorities concerned to comply with the said license agreement and neither the Deputy Commissioner could have directed nor respondent No.3 could have acted on the said directions and issued Annexure-D to D9 retrospectively enhancing the license fee and also - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 demanding interest thereon. As such I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 30.5.2016 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-E is hereby quashed. iii. Consequently, the notices/orders passed by respondent No.3 dated 16.6.2016 at Annexure-D to D9 are quashed. iv. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay and continue to pay the license fee in terms of license fee fixed as also the enhancement as contained in the license agreement till the period of license. v. Liberty is however, reserved to the respondents to initiate proceedings against petitioners, if there is any violation by the petitioner and/or it is found that the petitioners and the officers of the respondent No.3 had colluded with each other. 3. The learned counsel would submit that an order of the kind that is passed by the Coordinate Bench, if passed, would suffice for the present. It is the submission of the counsel for the respondents as well. 4. In the light of the submissions being in unison, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petitions, directing - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1152 WP Nos. 110279 of 2017 C/W 107276/2017, 109881/2017 110106/2017 the respondent-Municipality, if they are wanting to issue any notice, or notice has been issued to anyone of them, those proceedings should be taken forward, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, which is quoted (supra). 5. The counsels for the petitioners and respondents to accept the said course of action. 6. In that light, all the impugned notices so issued in any of the petitions, and the internal communication so made between the parties, would stand quashed. 7. Liberty as directed by the Coordinate Bench stands reserved in the cases at hand as well. 8. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5