The decision addresses the rights of vendors claiming occupation under municipal regulations and the procedural compliance needed for retaining possession under the right of first refusal.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners, who are street vendors, have been rehabilitated permitting them to occupy the commercial shops constructed by the second respondent, and they are aggrieved by the Public Notification dated 12.02.2024 [Annexure-E] published in Prajavani, a Kannada News Daily, and while challenging this Notification, the petitioners have sought for directions to the second respondent to remove the lock put to the shops and permit them to occupy these shops.

2. During the course of hearing this petition on 05.12.2024, Sri B J Somayaji, the learned counsel for the second respondent, invited this Court's attention to certain averments in the Statement of Objections and placed on record the following:

"[a] The petitioners in Nos. 2,6,22,23,34,36,42,47,52,56 and 60 have accepted the exercise of Right of First Refusal and deposited the rentals at the rate of 5% more than the highest bid and the second respondent will permit these petitioners to occupy the corresponding premises upon finalization of the terms of lease.

[b] The other petitioners have voluntarily handed over possession of the corresponding shops, but the second respondent will extend another opportunity to offer 5% more than the highest bid in exercise of the Right of First Refusal and if these petitioners as well accept this offer and deposit the money subject to finalization of the terms, the second respondent would permit them to continue in possession of these shops."

3. If Smt. Suman Hegde, the learned counsel who was permitted to argue for the petitioners, sought time to respond in the light of these submissions, the second respondent was called upon to place in writing the highest bid received for the shops other than the shops claimed by the petitioners in Nos.2, 6, 22, 23, 34, 36, 42, 47, 52, 56 and 60. In terms of such liberty, the second respondent has filed this affidavit on 12.12.2024, and regarding these petitioners, the second respondent has stated as follows:-

"2. As stated in the statement objections of second respondent, petitioner nos.2, 6,22,23,34,36,42,47,52,56 and 60 have exercised the right of the first refusal and also paid the amount through demand drafts in terms of clause 13 of context 3 of circular dated 19.07.2019. If they renew their demand drafts, the auction proceedings may be finalized, and they may occupy the respective shops.

Further, as against the other petitioners, the second respondent has stated as follows:

"Petitioner Nos.1 to 23, 25 to 37, 39,40,42 to 52, 54 to 57 and 60 who have exercised the right of 'first refusal' on 20.02.2024 have not paid the amount. According to circular dated 19.07.2019, if the existing occupiers exercise right of first refusal, they should be permitted to pay the bid amount and additional 5% of the bid amount at the time of finalization of auction. If they pay the said amount before finalization of the auction proceedings, they may be permitted to occupy the respective shops."

4. This Court, after this affidavit is placed on record, has called the petition on next three occasions, but none has appeared for the petitioners. This Court must consider why the petition must not be disposed of [along with the application for impleading] in the light of the second respondent's specific stand as stated before this Court on 05.12.2024 and reiterated by the second respondent by his affidavit dated 12.12.2024.

5. Upon hearing Sri B J Somayaji, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri T A Karumbaiah, the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents [also for impleading applicants], and in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioners' cause that the corresponding premises are under lock and key of the secon