Karnataka HC.
Credit: DH Photo/S K Dinesh
Judges cannot act like the Mughals of a bygone era, according to the High Court of Karnataka.
A division bench comprising Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D Huddar observed in a recent judgment.
The Channapatna City Municipal Council filed an appeal challenging the order passed by a single judge. The case pertains to allotment of a shop under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act in favour of Siddaramu (now deceased).
The direction for allotment was issued by the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The CMC initiated a challenge to this direction and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
The top court ordered handing possession of the shop with a Rs 1,500 monthly rent, leaving open the issue of deposit amount. Ultimately, in November 2011, the court directed Siddaramu to pay a rent of Rs 1,500 with Rs 1.5 lakh as deposit.
While in March 2010, the shop was allotted to Siddaramu, on June 8, 2015, the CMC issued a notice, asking him to register the shop for a period of 12 years, failing which the deposit amount will be forfeited.
Siddaramu challenged this notice and on June 2, 2016, a single bench directed the CMC to execute a 20-year lease deed on the grounds that the Supreme Court had put him in possession. The CMC moved an appeal challenging this order of the single judge.
The division bench noted that the provisions of erstwhile and the new Disabilities Act are not intended to protect the dependents of persons with disability, once he breathes his last. The court noted that as per government order dated October 26, 2009, issued under section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, a maximum period of 12 years for a lease of these properties has been prescribed and the same has got statutory force.
“Obviously, this circular having been issued in terms of Section 72(2) of the said Act has statutory force, and therefore, an allottee of a public premises cannot claim that the tenure of allotment should be longer than beyond 12 years. The learned single judge could not have lightly construed such an instrument of law to the prejudice of public interest and conversely to the advantage of a private citizen. No writ can be issued in derogation of law. Writ courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law, to say the least. Obviously, they cannot arrogate to themselves the extraordinary power vested in the apex court of the country under Article 142 of the Constitution. After all, we are judges and therefore, cannot act like Mughals of a bygone era,” the bench said.
However, since the widow of Siddramu is now running the shop and has to look after minor children, the bench granted her time till December 31, 2024, to remain in the said shop premises.