AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the tender-cum-open auction notice dated 05.01.2018 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.
In that background, the petitioner is seeking issue of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to proceed further till the miscellaneous
appeal pending before the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Channarayapatna is heard and disposed of.
The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondents under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''''the Act'''' for short) were before this Court in W.P. Nos.49280- 49284/2017
and connected petition.
This Court, while disposing of petition on 03.11.2017, having taken note that the petitioners are to avail the remedy of appeal as provided under
Section 10 of the Act, had relegated the petitioners to the appeal remedy. Though at that stage it was not clear as to whether the petitioners were
still in possession and whether the eviction order has been implemented, this Court had made it clear that if the petitioners are in possession, their
possession shall stand protected for four weeks to enable them to avail the remedy of appeal. The said benefit was extended through the order
dated 14.12.2017.
In the meanwhile, the petitioners have already filed the appeal before the learned Appellate Judge in the appeals referred to in Annexure-F
series. In the said appeal, an application seeking for injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has been filed
and the same is pending.
The respondents, having entered appearance, have taken time to file objection. Pending the above proceedings the petitioners have issued the
tender notification dated 05.01.2018 under which the bids have been invited even in respect of the shops which are said to be occupied by the
petitioners. It is in that light, the petitioners are before this Court.
Though learned counsel for the petitioners contend that such action to auction the shops which have license would not be justified when the
petitioners are prosecuting the remedy of appeal, the consideration of such contention in these petitions would not arise. This is for the reason that
the auction proposed by the respondents is a consequential action of the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Therefore, whether
the auction is conducted or not, if there is eviction as is sought to be made out by the petitioners, appropriate interim protection is to be sought in
the pending appeal before the learned Appellate Judge, if the case to that effect is made out. Therefore, all contentions including the validity or
other wise of the action being taken by the respondents to put any other person in possession of the same shops which are claimed to be in
occupation of the petitioners and in that regard, if any interim orders are to be passed those are all contentions to be put forth to the learned
Appellate Judge.
In that light, I see no reasons to entertain these petitions. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek for an appropriate relief in the
pending appeal, if need be, by seeking advancing of the case, if the petitioners are advised to do so. In that regard the contentions are left open.
With such liberty, petitions stand disposed of.