- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12650 RP No. 100016 of 2025 IN WP No.100449 of 2025 (LB-RES) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 100016 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.100449 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI MALLIKARJUN S/O BALAPPA BHARANATTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SULEBHAVI TQ AND DIST.: BELAGAVI – 590 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. R M HIREMATH, ADVOCATE, SRI SUJEET S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE AND SMT. ARADHANA MANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO) GRAM PANCHAYAT, SULEBHAVI TQ AND DIST.: BELAGAVI – 590 001. 2. CEO TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI, DIST.: BELAGAVI – 590 001 3. CEO ZILLA PANCHAYAT BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4. SHRI RAFIQUE BABASAHEB JAMADAR AGE: 57 YEARS, Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12650 RP No. 100016 of 2025 IN WP No.100449 of 2025 (LB-RES) OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O SULEBHAVI TQ AND DIST.: BELAGAVI - 590 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.100449/2025 (LB-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Review the Order dated 11/02/2025 passed in W.P. No.100449/2025 (LB-RES) in the interest of justice and equity. b. Granting any other relief deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 2. By way of the above petition, the petitioner seeks for review of the order dated 11.02.2025 in WP No.100449 of 2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12650 RP No. 100016 of 2025 IN WP No.100449 of 2025 (LB-RES) 3. The contention of Sri.Sujeet S.Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner is that without making the petitioner a party to the petition, an order has been obtained by respondent No.4 behind the back of the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of hearing. His submission is also that respondent No.1 has authorised the petitioner to put up a pan shop, and it is in pursuance thereof that a pan shop has been put up, and as such, there cannot be any illegality in the same. 4. Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent Nos . 1 to 3, submits that though a licence had been issued, the said licence was with regard to house No. 1147/1 and not the present location. In fact, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had put up a shop on the drain, a notice came to be issued on 18-01-2016, despite which the petitioner did not vacate the premises. Even after orders were passed by this court in WP No.100449 of 2025, when the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12650 RP No. 100016 of 2025 IN WP No.100449 of 2025 (LB-RES) respondents No.1 to 3 visited the shop along with the police authorities, the petitioner had created a scene which came in the way of the respondents No.1 to 3 in implementing the orders passed in WP 100449 of 2025. 5. Heard Sri.Sujeet S.Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Perused papers. 6. Though the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has a licence, a perusal of licence which has been produced by respondents No.1 to 3 would indicate that the licence is in respect of House No.1147/1. The action which is now proposed to be taken by respondents No.1 to 3 and the orders which have been passed by this court are as regards the present location of the shop and not as regards any shop which may be located in house No.1147/1. If that be so, the said licence cannot be pressed into service seeking for review of the order. Apparently, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12650 RP No. 100016 of 2025 IN WP No.100449 of 2025 (LB-RES) the shop of the petitioner is at a different a location where there is no authorisation. As such, respondents No.1 to 3 were duty-bound to remove the said shop, which had been constructed in a location other than that which was authorised. 7. Insofar as the petitioner not being made a party to W.P. No.100449 of 2025, is correct, it remains that what has been ordered in WP No. 100449 of 2025 is a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner therein. There is no positive direction to remove any construction, but only mandamus is issued for consideration of the representations and remove any unauthorised construction of the shop on storm water drain or in the road. The petitioner cannot have any vested interest in putting up any construction on the storm water drain or in the road. Thus, the construction itself being illegal, the petitioner would not be entitled for any hearing in respect of such construction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12650 RP No. 100016 of 2025 IN WP No.100449 of 2025 (LB-RES) 8. On both the grounds, I do not find any reason or exfacie error to review the order dated 11.02.2025. Review Petition stands dismissed. 9. In view of disposal of the petition, pending IA stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 154