Anthon S/O Vidar Fernandes vs. The State Of Karantaka

Facts

The petitioner, Anthon S/o Vidar Fernandes, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing Respondent No. 2, the City Municipal Council, Karwar, to consider his representation dated 02.09.2020. The petitioner had been the highest bidder for shop No. F6 at a monthly rent of Rs. 28,500/-. However, a fresh notification for a bid was issued, and the subsequent highest bid for a similar shop was Rs. 16,500/- plus GST. The respondents stated that they had suffered a loss of revenue for over two years and proposed to execute a registered lease deed in favor of the petitioner for shop No. F6 if the petitioner agreed to pay the rent at Rs. 16,500/- plus GST, with the process to be completed within three months. The petitioner agreed to this proposal.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner initially sought two prayers: a writ of certiorari to quash an order and a writ of mandamus to direct the consideration of his representation. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the prayer for a writ of certiorari. The core of the petition then became the prayer for a mandamus. The respondents, through a memo, presented a proposal to resolve the dispute. This proposal involved the petitioner accepting a revised rent of Rs. 16,500/- plus GST for shop No. F6 and agreeing to the execution of a registered lease deed within three months. The petitioner, on instructions, accepted this proposal and undertook to pay the security deposit and the revised rent. The respondents also agreed to adjust the EMD towards the rent. In light of this mutual agreement and settlement reached between the parties, the Court found that nothing further remained for consideration in the writ petition. The petition was disposed of in terms of the memo filed by the respondents, which embodied the agreed settlement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notice/order dated 26.08.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2. (Petitioner did not press this prayer). 2. Whether the Court should issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.09.2020, following the principles of natural justice. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to consider his representation. (No specific arguments recorded for the petitioner on the merits of the representation itself, beyond seeking its consideration). Respondents' Contention: Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a memo proposing a settlement. They highlighted the loss of revenue and offered to execute a lease deed for shop No. F6 at a revised rent of Rs. 16,500/- plus GST, provided the petitioner accepted this proposal and paid the security deposit and rent. They also agreed to adjust the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) towards the rent.