IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 22723 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. GUNAKARA SHETTY

S/O LATE CHINNAYYA SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2-25/9, MATHRU SHREE,

SANNANAGARA, NEAR BEM SCHOOL,

KULAI, MANGALORE-575019.

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER

MR. ABDUL HARSHAD

S/O MOHAMMED BAWA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-148,

NEAR THOKUR WHATER TANK, SHEDIGURI,

62 THOKUR, BAIKAMPADY,

MANGALORE-575011

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHENOY M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER

MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION

LALBAGH, MANGALORE-575003

2. DEPUTY COMMISSION (REVENUE)

MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION,

INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIKAMPADY,

MANGALORE-575011

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NITHISH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 02.06.2025 IN CR.NO.156691/2023-24/A2 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.ªÀÄ.£À.¥Á./PAÀ zÁ«/¹Dgï 156691/2023-24/J2 dated 02.06.2025. He has also sought for a writ or direction to the respondents to grant him the right of first refusal over the petition schedule property as per the Government notification / circular dated

19.07.2019.

2. The petitioner was permitted to occupy a premises bearing Stall No.3 situate in the ground floor of the commercial complex, Bikampady Industrial Area, Opposite KIADB Office, Baikampady, Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, (henceforth referred to as 'the premises') belonging to the respondent No.1. The petitioner was conducting business in the premises since the last 28 years. It is contended that the respondent No.2 intended to conduct an E-auction in respect of five shops including the premises occupied by the petitioner as per the Resolution bearing No.55/2023-24 dated 17.10.2023 and proposed to evict the petitioner from the premises so that a tender could be called for and one of the shops could be allotted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner contends that on 10.03.2025, the Zonal Commissioner, Mangaluru City Corporation, issued a notice bearing No.ªÀÄ.£.À¥Á./¸ÀÄ/PAÀ /¹.Dgï 156691/2024-25/J2 stating that a tender is invited for allotment of five shops in Bikampady market and in this regard, a meeting was called for in the Zonal Commissioner’s office on 11.03.2025 at 11 a.m. to consider the right of first refusal of the petitioner and similarly situated tenants. The petitioner contends that no meeting was conducted by the Zonal Commissioner on 11.03.2025 and hence, the petitioner did not have an opportunity to put forward his application to secure his right of first refusal. The respondent No.2 then decided to conduct a lottery to identify the shop that could be allotted to a reserved category. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 02.06.2025 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the petition premises before 30.06.2025. The petitioner contends that though his tenure came to an end, he was continued in the premises as per the Government circular dated 19.07.2019 and that he is entitled to reserve his right of first refusal before the property is auctioned. The petitioner caused a notice dated 06.06.2025 in this regard to the respondent No.2, who issued a reply dated 05.07.2025 rejecting the request of the petitioner and threatened to take legal action. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the notice dated 02.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises by holding over in as much as, even