- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 200496 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. BASAWARAJ S/O SHARANABASAVARAJ BYALI, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122 2. SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O NARASAPPA HUGAR, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122. 3. VIJAYKUMAR S/O YAMANAPPA AGED 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122. 4. MEHABOOB S/O ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122. 5. MOHD. SHOUKATH ALI S/O ASHMATH ALI, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE TMC LINGASUGUR, THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER, LINGASUGUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OF THE LIKE NATURE AND QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 03.02.2025 IN NO. SUM.PUSAKUM/MALIGE/HARAJU/2/34MA/2024-25 OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR COMMAND OF THE LIKE NATURE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT DISTURB THE POSSESSION AND OCCUPANCY OF THE SHOPS, UNTIL THE AUCTION PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUCTION PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 03.02.2025 bearing No. SUM. PUSAKUM / MALIGE / HARAJU / 2 / 34MA / 2024-25 issued by respondent No.2. They have - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents not to disturb the possession and occupancy of the shops, until the auction proceedings are concluded. 2. The petitioners were permitted to occupy the shops belonging to respondent No.2. The petitioners contend that respondent No. 2, issued a publication dated 14.07.2014, inviting applications from eligible candidates to occupy the premises that were previously occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners filed O.S.No.94/2015 before the Additional Civil Judge, Lingasugur, for perpetual injunction, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed R.A.No.19/2022, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, RSA No.200381/2022 was filed. In the said second appeal, the parties entered into an understanding, in terms of which the petitioners agreed to vacate and hand over the premises. Consequently, RSA No.200381/2022 was disposed off, granting time to the petitioners to vacate the premises by 31.12.2023. The petitioners contend that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 since no notification was issued by respondent No.2 for auctioning the premises, they moved an application seeking extension of time to hand over the vacant premises. This Court, in terms of the order dated 10.01.2024 in RSA No.200381/2022, extended the time for vacating the premises until respondent No.2 issued a notification for conducting a public auction. The petitioners further contend that this Court permitted them to participate in the auction and also permitted the petitioners to exercise their right of first refusal by offering 5% over and above the highest bid received in the auction, as provided in paragraph 13 of Schedule III of the circular dated 19.07.2019, issued by the respondents. This Court directed that the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and if, the petitioners were found to be eligible, to allot the premises to them on fresh terms and conditions. The petitioners contend that respondent No. 2 has now issued a notification, in terms of which, the shops in their occupation that are put up for auction are reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). They - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 therefore contend that they cannot now exercise their right of first option by paying 5% over and above the highest bid received in the auction, as they do not belong to the SC/ST category. The petitioners assert that the impugned notification is bad in the eye of law as the petitioners right to exercise the first option is deprived. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.2 has kept many shops right in front of the police station vacant and therefore, the shops that are vacant may be reserved for SC/ST categories and that the shops occupied by the petitioners should be put up for auction, so that the petitioners would have a right of exercising first option by paying 5% over and above the highest bid received. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that this Court in terms of the order dated 27.09.2022 in RSA No. 200381/2022, had specifically - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 directed the petitioners to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises by 31.12.2023 as per their undertaking. The petitioners later filed an application seeking an extension of time, which was granted until the issuance of a notification by respondent No.2 for conducting a public auction. He therefore contends that now that the respondent No.2 has issued a notification scheduling the auction for 06.03.2025 and the petitioners have approached this Court to stall the process. He contends that the respondent No.2 is bound to follow the roster, even for the purposes of auctioning the shops belonging to respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioners have to make way for an auction. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. The petitioners have placed on record Annexure –A, A1, A2, A3, and A4, which are the licenses issued by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 respondent No. 2 permitting them to occupy the premises. These documents indicate that the petitioners have been in possession of the shops belonging to respondent No.2 since 2008. The petitioners have occupied the premises for more than 16 years and have kept the litigation alive by filing one or the other proceedings before one or the other Courts and have been instrumental in getting the tenure extended. It is relevant to note that the commercial premises belonging to the respondent No.2 cannot be monopolized by a select few, but is to be made available to all needy citizens, who intend to commence their business or earn their livelihood. The petitioners have been given ample time since 2008 till today to establish their business and therefore, they are bound to make way for others to use the facility of respondent No.2. 7. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises to respondent No.2 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1253 WP No. 200496 of 2025 before the scheduled auction date, so as to enable the respondent No.2 to conclude the auction. If the petitioners fail to hand over the possession, respondent No.2 is at liberty to use required force to evict the petitioners from the shops in question before the auction date. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE NJ LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39 CT:SI