- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18108 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. ARUN KUMAR K SHENOY S/O LATE MUKUNDARAYA SHENOTY AGED 65 YEARS MUKUND NIVAS MAIN ROAD, KAUP 574106 UDUPI DISTRICT 2. MR. KAUP GIRIDHAR SHENOY S/O LT MUKUNDARAYA SHENOTY AGED 63 YEARS MUKUND NIVAS MAIN ROAD, KAUP 574106 UDUPI DISTRICT 3. MR SRIKAR SHENOY S/O LT MUKUKNDARAYA SHENOY AGED 60 YEARS S/O LT MUKUNDARAYA SHENOTY AGED 65 YEARS MUKUND NIVAS, MAIN ROAD, KAUP 574106, UDUPI DISTRICT ALL ARE REP BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. AJITH ARUN SHENORY AGED 35 YEARS S/O SRI K ARUN SHENOY PETE WARD, KAUP 571406 UDUPI DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 RAJATHDRI MANIPAL 576104 2. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY REGIONAL TANSPORT OFFICE MANIPAL 576104 UDUPI DISTRICT 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NO 1, SUB DIVSION UDUPI 576101 4. THE CHIEF OFIFCER TOWN MUNCIPALITY KAUP 574106 KAUP TALUK UDUPI DSITRCT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S.., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE ACTION FOR REMOVAL OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW STAND IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY NO.30-4A3A-1 OF KAUP TOWN AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; i. Directing the respondents to take action for removal of the Autorickshaw Stand in front of the property bearing Sy. No. 30-4A3A-1 of Kaup Town. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 ii. Direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 13.06.2022 and 01.07.2022 and take action (ANNEXURE-E & G) iii. Grant such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and so as to meet the ends of justice and equity. 2. Petitioners claim to be co-owners of the property bearing Sy.No.30-4A3A-1 of Padu village now in Pete ward of Kaup Town, Udupi District. In the said property, a commercial building has been constructed which has nine (9) shops carrying on various businesses Bar and Restaurant, Stationery Shop, Footwear, Xerox, Bakery, Cloth, General Store and Cycle Repair Shop, as regards which, respondent No.4 has issued separate municipal numbers and has been collecting taxes. 3. The petitioners, aggrieved by certain auto rickshaws illegally parking in front of the petitioner's property, had approached respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 seeking action against the said auto rickshaw owners/drivers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 4. Respondent No.4 had issued an endorsement to the petitioner stating that the property comes within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department and therefore, they may approach the Public Works Department i.e., respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 had communicated to the petitioner stating that the auto rickshaw stand is unauthorized, the Public Works Department has not issued any permission, the authority concerned to remove the unauthorized auto rickshaw stand is respondent No.4 and respondent No.3 cannot take any action in relation thereto. 5. Respondent No.2-Regional Transport Authority has also issued an endorsement calling upon the petitioner to approach the local authorities, viz., respondent No.4. It is in that background that when no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 6. Sri. Chandranath Ariga.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the photographs produced at the Annexure-B and C, submits that; 6.1. Once the auto rickshaw are parked in front of the property of the petitioner, the access of both the petitioner and the customer of the petitioner is completely blocked, and the customers cannot access the services being provided by the petitioner, causing harm, loss and injury to the petitioner. 6.2. In that background, he submits that the petitioner making payment of the due taxes to respondent No.4, there being illegal parking in the road under the custody and supervision of respondent No.4, it is the duty of respondent No.4 to cater to the above situation and remove the auto rickshaw which are parked in front of the property of the petitioner. 7. Sri.Shyam Koundinya.A.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 7.1. The road has been paved by Public Works Department and as such it is for the Public Works Department to take action, and respondent No.4 has also requested respondent No.3- Public Works Department to take action. 7.2. His further submission is that apart from the Public Works Department, it is the Regional Transport Authority and Police Authorities who are to take action as regards the auto-rikshaws parked in a ‘No Parking Area’. 7.3. He submits that respondent No.4 has nothing to do with the auto-rikshaws which are parked in front of the premises of the petitioner, since there is no authorisation which has been granted by anybody, including respondent No.4, for such parking of auto-rikshaws or use of the said road as an auto-rikshaws stand. 7.4. Lastly, Sri.Shyam Koundinya.A.S., learned counsel, submits that the claim of the petitioner is under the lease deed for a period of 9999 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 years, which cannot be recognised under law; that the petitioners cannot approach this Court claiming any rights under said lease; and that the lease deed has to be impounded. 8. Heard Sri.Chandranath Ariga.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.Shyam Koundinya.A.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. perused papers. 9. It is rather strange case where respondent No. 4, Chief Officer of the Town Municipality, claims that respondent No.4 cannot do anything when auto- rikshaws are illegally parked in front of the commercial building of the petitioners from whom respondent No.4 is receiving all the taxes. 10. The respondent No.4 shockingly has passed the buck to the Regional Transport Authority and Public Works Department, on the ground that the Public Works Department is the one who paved the road and the Regional Transport Authority is the one who grants - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 the license and/or registration to the auto-rikshaws forgetting that the roads come with the administrative supervision of the Town Municipality and it is for the Town Municipality to take care of the parking areas, designation of parking areas, designation of auto stands etc., in conjunction and association with the jurisdictional police authority. 11. In my considered opinion, the action on part of the respondent No.4 is complete abdication of the duties imposed on respondent No.4 to cater to the needs of the citizen of the Town Municipality as also to redress the grievances, if any raised by the citizens. The manner in which respondent No.4 has acted, infact is supporting the said auto rickshaws drivers ill-legally parking in front of the commercial building of the petitioner, thus for lack of a better word is abetting the action on part of the auto rickshaw drivers, which is not permissible. 12. Respondent No.4 has not established any action taken by respondent No.4 except to call upon the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 petitioner to approach the Regional Transport Authority and the Public Works Department and to some extent, respondent No.4 interacting with the Public Works Department. That kind of stand on part of respondent No.4 as indicated supra is an abdication of the duties imposed on respondent No.4. 13. It is further even more shocking that such contentions have been taken in respect of the lease deed of the petitioner by the Executive Officer trying to negate the right of the petitioner in an immovable property. Respondent No.4 ought to have discharged his duties rather than finding loopholes in the titles of the property, which is not in dispute by any other person. Whether the petitioner claims a right under a lease or not, whether the period is 9999 years or not, i.e., between the petitioner and owner of the property, the Chief Officer of the municipal council, has nothing to do with it. This again would only clearly and categorically establish that there appears to be collusion between the respondent No.4 and the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 auto rikshaw owner/drivers who are using the property in front of the petitioner’s property for parking of their auto rickshaws and it appears that is the reason why respondent No.4 has not taken any action and as such, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent No.1 is directed to secure the removal of the auto rickshaw stand in front of the commercial building of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.30-4A3A-1 of Padu village now in Pete ward of Kaup Town, Udupi District as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this Order. iii. In the event fo Respondent No.4 failing to do so within the stipulated time the Director, Municipal Administration is directed to take necessary action for removal of the auto rikshaw stand in front of the commercial building of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.30-4A3A-1 of Padu village now in Pete ward of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:529 WP No. 18108 of 2022 Kaup Town, Udupi District, within 30 days of the expiry of time granted to Respondent No.4. iv. The Director, Municipal Administration, is also directed to take such action as is necessary against respondent No.4 for abdication of duties and failing to discharge the duties which are imposed on respondent No.4 by following due procedure. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53