- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33396 WP No. 25776 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25776 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD BOMBAY 400020. ALSO HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT 1ST FLOORBSNL CACT, DOORAVANINAGARA KRISHNAR AJAPURAM BANGLAORE 560 0016 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY BHUVAN SOOD S/O RAVINDER SOOD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP LAHIRI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER EMU (R AND D) DRDO TOWNSHIP Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33396 WP No. 25776 of 2025 C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE 560 093. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA BY DRDO CV RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE 560 093 BY TECHNICAL OFFICER C. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. JAYAKAR SHETTY., CGC) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- (A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2025 (ANNEXURE -A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, REJECTING THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION DATED 25.07.2025 FOR PERMISSION TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WITNESS (PW1) IN CASE NO.279/HP LEASE/EMU/2025 INITIATED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE PUBLIC PREMISES EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION ACT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 25.07.2025 (ANNEXURE -B) AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WITNESS (PW1). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33396 WP No. 25776 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is called upon to answer in the proceedings initiated under the Public Premises [Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971, is aggrieved by the Estate Officer's [the first respondent] order dated 19.08.2025 [Annexure-A]. It is seen from the reasons assigned by the Estate Officer that the petitioner's request for cross examination of one of the witnesses on behalf of the second respondent is rejected on the ground that the proceedings are summary in nature. Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has substantial defence inasmuch as it contends that there would be a statutory renewal of the lease granted and that the petitioner has also filed suit for specific performance relying upon such provision for statutory renewal and the second respondent's - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33396 WP No. 25776 of 2025 witness must respond to these defences in the cross examination for due decision. Sri K.Jayakar Shetty, the learned Central Government Council for the respondents, without much ado, submits that the petitioner could be permitted to cross examine the second respondent's witness, but the petitioner cannot protract the proceedings on the ground of cross examination, and in fact, the learned counsel submits that the Court may dispose of the petition permitting the petitioner to commence and complete cross examination tomorrow i.e. 29.08.2025 [the next date of hearing]. These submissions are considered, and this Court must opine that the proceedings are summary in nature is not a reason to refuse the right of cross examination. The Estate Officer, because the proceedings are summary in nature, must record sum and substance of the evidence as spoken to by the witness in the cross examination. Therefore, there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33396 WP No. 25776 of 2025 must be interference. However, insofar as the stipulation that must be, this Court finds it reasonable to stipulate that the petitioner must begin the cross examination tomorrow and complete the cross examination expeditiously without giving an impression of using the opportunity of cross examination to protract the proceedings. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part quashing the Estate Officer's impugned order dated 19.08.2025 calling upon the Estate Officer to permit the petitioner to cross examine the second respondent's witness subject to this Court's observation as aforesaid and stipulating the petitioner shall, to avoid an order on default, commence cross examination tomorrow [29.08.2025] and that they shall ensure - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33396 WP No. 25776 of 2025 that the cross examine is completed at the earliest without any protraction. The cross examination shall be completed over the next ten days. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr