IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

WRIT APPEAL NO.8446/2012 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN :

SRI D.RAJU, S/o CHELUVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/o AVR ROAD, (S.KARIYAPPA ROAD), KANAKAPURA TOWN, DISTRICT – 562117. …APPELLANT

(BYSRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADV.)

AND :

1. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560001.

2. THE PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KANAKAPURA, – 562117.

3. THE TALUK HEALTH OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

2

KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562117.

4. THE MEMBER-SECRETARY, HEALTH PROTECTING COMMITTEE, DEPARTMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562117,

5. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA – 562117.

6. THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANAKAPURA TOWN, KANAKAPURA – 562117.

7. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL, KANAKAPURA TOWN, KANAKAPURA – 562117.

8. SRI KODANDA RAMA, S/o MELUGIRI. R/A DHARMARAJ WORKSHOP ROAD, J.C.EXTENSION, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562117. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADV. FOR R8)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.24245/2012(GM-RES) DATED 28.08.2012.

3

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, N KUMAR J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, who has declined to cancel the grant of the Milk Booth situated in the compound of the Government Hospital to the 8 th respondent.

2. The dispute was between the appellant and the

8th respondent. Who is most suitable to run the milk booth is the question. The petitioner/appellant earlier was running a milk booth on M.G. Road,

Kanakapura, which was demolished for the purpose of widening the said road. Taluk Panchayath decided to shift the milk booth to the Compound of the

Government Hospital, Kanakapura. Accordingly, it was established there and then both the appellant and the 8 th respondent made applications for grant of the said milk booth. The 8 th respondent’s claim was

4 accepted. Challenging the same, the appellant/petitioner preferred Writ Petition

No.2716/2011 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be allowed directing the authorities to consider the claim of both in accordance with law.

After such reconsideration, again the petition is allowed in favour of the 8 th respondent. The same was challenged before the learned Single Judge. But the learned Single Judge did not find any ground in the writ petition and accordingly, he dismissed the same. Against this order, the present writ appeal is filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order contends that the appellant is a displaced person and therefore, his claim should have been considered.

4. The material on record discloses the appellant belongs to 3A category. Whereas, the respondent

5

No.8 belongs to 2A category. In addition, the appellant was Municipal Councillor of Kanakapura from 1996 to 2001. His income is more than

Rs.10,000/- per annum. In fact, the appellant is selling the milk packets on M.G. Road at Kanakapura.

Therefore, he is not an unemployed person. Taking into consideration the said facts, his claim was rejected and the 8 th respondent’s claim was upheld.

5. In the light of the aforesaid material on record, it cannot be said that there was no justification for not accepting the claim of the appellant. We do not see any merits.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE Rbv/-