- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6269 OF 2020 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: DIVYAJYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA CHIKKANNA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560123, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.M.MUNINARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS &PETITIONER (BY SRI.K. DIWAKARA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HITESH GOWDA B J., AND SRI. PRITHIVI SHRESHT., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, DEPT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE GOVENMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTREIS AND COMMERCE M.S.M.E, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGLAORE RURAL DISTRICT, V.V.TOWER, BANGALORE 560001. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCE ROOM NO.203, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN M.A.NO.40/2019, ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AD BANGALORE AND ORDER PASSED BY R-4 IN NO.1(1095-1096)SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN M.A.NO.40/2019, ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU DATED 05.03.2020 AT ANNX-P AND ORDER PASSED BY R-4 IN NO. 1(1095-1096) DATED 28.08.2019 AT ANNX-L. CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2020 in M.A. No.40/2019 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, and the impugned order is in the petitioner's appeal under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1974 [for short 'the Public Premises Act'] against the fourth respondent's Order dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 28.08.2019 under the Public Premises Act for the petitioner's eviction. 2. The State Government has granted a lease of the subject premises to the petitioner when it was in a dilapidated condition for housing a Training Center; that the Government has permitted those enrolled with its Training Center to complete their course with the petitioner; that the petitioner has also invested in repairing the premises that was in a dilapidated condition. This Court, by the interim order dated 28.05.2020 in this petition, has permitted the petitioner to continue the occupation of the subject premises to ensure that the students enrolled with it can complete their examinations. 3. Sri K Diwakara, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that after such examination, the petitioner has made over possession of the subject premises to the fourth respondent; that the petitioner must remove its furniture and training - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 equipment; that the subject premises is still under the fourth respondent's lock and key but unoccupied. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is constrained to seek directions to the second respondent to consider its request to permit the petitioner to re-occupy the premises for establishing another center. In elaboration, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has multiple Training Centers under the aegis of the Commissionerate of Industries and Commerce [now called Skill Development and Training] and that for a growing metropolis such as Bengaluru, there would be an ever-growing need of youngsters who are trained in specific skills. 4. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, supports the initiation of the proceedings under the Public Premises Act and the conclusion thereof in terms of the impugned order. On the request of the petitioner for disposal of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 petition with direction to the fourth respondent to consider permitting the petitioner to re-occupy the premises for commencing a Training Center that would be beneficial to the local community, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this would arise only if the subject premises is not required by the Department for its other purposes, and that in any event, such request must be considered in the light of the prevalent policy and the Rules/ norms evolved in terms thereof. 5. It is obvious from the submissions that the petitioner cannot pursue its grievance with the conclusion of the proceedings under the Public Premises Act and it must only be given reasonable time if it has not already removed its furniture and equipment to remove the same. Further, this Court, in the light of the reasons elaborated by Sri K Diwakara, is also of the considered opinion that the fourth respondent may consider whether it is even - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 possible to permit the petitioner to re-occupy the premises for establishing a Training Center predicated on the other uses that the Department may have and if the premises is not made over to any other institution but with the clarification that no right is created in the petitioner for a favourable consideration with this view. The second respondent is called upon to assign reasons, if in the second respondent's view, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-occupy the subject premises for a Training Center. As such, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation with the second respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order for permission/grant of lease to occupy the subject premises for establishing a Training Center. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44416 WP No. 6269 of 2020 [b] The second respondent is called upon to decide on such representation, if the premises is still open and not made over to another entity or used by the Department and communicate its decision within the next eight [8] weeks. [c] The second respondent is also called upon to allow reasonable time to the petitioner, if it has not already removed its furniture and equipment, to remove the same. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-