Malleswaram New Market (Fruits, Vegetables and Flower Merchant''s Association, Regd.) vs The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Bangalore - 560 002 and The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority Kumara Park West Bangalore - 560 002

Ram Mohan Reddy

Petitioner claiming to be a society registered under the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960 having a membership of 203 persons, as disclosed in Annexure-B, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus to quash Annexures - D, E and F. The petitioner claims to espouse the cause of all its members said to be petty traders in the business of fruits, vegetables and flowers having their shops in the Malleswaram New Market allotted by respondent No. 1 -Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Petitioner asserts to have filed O.S. No. 8302/1998 in a representative capacity, before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore inter alia alleging deficiencies in the maintenance of the infrastructure and problems faced by the merchants in the said market, which the petitioner withdrew by filing an application on 10.11.2011, following which the Trial Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit as withdrawn, while permitting it to file a fresh suit. According to the petitioner during the pendency of O.S. No. 8302/1998, the arrears of rents have been deposited by all of the 203 members. It is the allegation of the petitioner that rate of rents were feed after due deliberation with the Deputy Commissioner following which all the members have paid rents up to the end of June, 2012 and that further rents are not accepted by the Revenue Officers. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 failed to attend to the problems in the infrastructure for smooth running of the business, though large number of customers gather in the market. Petitioner alleges that large number of vendors are permitted to carry on business in the open main road next to Sri Ganapathi and Sri Raghavendra Swamy Temples, though can be provided space in the main Malleswaram New Market itself. It is stated that consequent upon respondent No. 1 having decided to put up a new building in the market complex, petitioner received communication dated 13.8.2012 Annexure-''D'' informing that a Memorandum of Undertaking in the format Annexure-''E'' must be entered into and handed over to the BBMP for development of the existing market. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 Bangalore Development Authority (for short ''BDA) lodged a caveat - Annexure-F taking inconsistent stand. Hence the petition.

The respondent - caveator though represented by Learned Counsel, is absent.

There is no dispute that the building housing the market in Malleswaram belonging to respondent No. 1 -BBMP is sought to be pulled down for construction of a new market complex and therefore the occupants of the shops are issued with the communication, identical to Annexure-''D'', calling upon the occupant to produce documents to prove license of the said shop, such as original allotment letter/license/lease agreement; if not the original licensee, documents to denote the relationship with the original licensee (e.g. Family tree, death certificate, succession certificate, partnership deed, etc.); latest receipt denoting payment of license fee paid in respect of the shop; identity proof and address proof; tax paid receipts, if any denoting the payment to the local authorities; document denoting the installation of Electricity meter, latest receipt for making payment towards electricity charges and affidavit of undertaking in the format enclosed therein.

Although, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that 203 members as listed in Annexure B are the legal occupants of the shop premises in the market for over four decades under orders of license and lease, there is not a titter of evidence to substantiate the same, except the self serving statement of the petitioner. It is in this context that BBMP - owner of the market complex in order to ascertain the genuiness of the claims of the occupants to be original licensees issued the letter, Annexure-D and enclosure Annexure-E a format for filing affidavit. No exception can be taken to the authorities making inquiries into the genuiness of the claims of each of the occupants of the shops in the market, before demolition and reconstruction.

According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the caveat petition, Annexure-F lodged by the Bangalore Development Authority - respondent No. 2, discloses that 6522.07 sq.mts. of property is handed over by the BBMP for redevelopment of the market under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.5.2012 and that one Muniyamma of shop No. 2 is the licensee in possession of the portion of the said shop while the caveator is taking steps to call upon the respondents to vacate the shop in possession so as to reconstruct the market and that Bangalore Development Authority is making alternative arrangement for respondents to run their business. The averments made therein are not inconsistent since Annexures-D and E are issued by the BBMP, while Annexure-F is a caveat petition filed by the BDA which is to carry out the reconstruction, not being the owner of the property and therefore any statement made by the BDA that the respondent in the caveat petition is the licensee, is, misconceived. The BBMP is in the process of identifying genuine occupants possessing valid licenses and therefore any statement made by the BDA in respect of such occupants is of no consequence.

In the result, this petition being meritless is accordingly rejected.