Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 189 (KAR)

D. R. Venkatesh Gowda v. State of Karnataka

2010-02-15

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : Petitioner has sought for quashing the order vide Annexure-V, dated 6-10-2009 issued by the 3rd respondent directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 71,250/-. 2. The records reveal that the petitioner was permitted to occupy Room No. 1 of Cauvery Guest House, Palace Road, Bangalore, for five days i.e., from 5-5-2009 to 11-5-2009 on the concessional rent of Rs. 100/- per day. The reservation pass dated 5-5-2009 issued to the petitioner is found at Annexure-L to the writ petition. The said document clearly reveals that the petitioner is given permission to occupy Room No. 1 in Cauvery Guest House on the ground that the petitioner is a freedom fighter. Though the petitioner was permitted to occupy one room from 5-5-2009 to 11-5-2009 in Cauvery Guest House, he overstayed in the said room till 5-10-2009, which means, the petitioner has stayed in Room No. 1 of Cauvery Guest House for 183 days. The 3rd respondent having found that the petitioner does not have records to show that he is a freedom fighter, charged a sum of Rs. 500/-per day as rent treating the petitioner as an ordinary citizen and consequently directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 91,250/-. Out of the said amount, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the balance of Rs. 71,250/-is required to be paid by the petitioner. 3. Though the petitioner occupied the room in Cauvery Guest House calling himself as a freedom fighter, he does not have any record to show that he was recognised as a freedom fighter by the State Government or Central Government. However, he relies upon the certificate issued by the Kolar District Congress Committee as per Annexure-A, dated 15-9-1960 and the certificate vide Annexure-B, dated 25th August, 1975 issued by freedom fighter K. Doraiswamy and another certificate issued by the member of Parliament of Kolar dated 22nd April, 1998, to contend that he is the freedom fighter. Though by virtue of these certificates, the concerned have certified that the petitioner is a freedom fighter, the same are not taken into consideration by respondent 3 presumably on the ground that there is no order either by the State Government or by the Central Government recognizing the petitioner as a freedom fighter. Though by virtue of these certificates, the concerned have certified that the petitioner is a freedom fighter, the same are not taken into consideration by respondent 3 presumably on the ground that there is no order either by the State Government or by the Central Government recognizing the petitioner as a freedom fighter. Since the petitioner has not produced the relevant certificate issued either by the State Government or by the Central Government to show that he is a freedom fighter, the 3rd respondent is justified in levying normal fare on the petitioner towards rent relating to the room occupied by the petitioner in Cauvery Guest House. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order, inasmuch as, it is for the petitioner to show to the satisfaction of the respondents that he is a freedom fighter. Since there is no authorised certificate issued either by the State Government or by the Central Government to show that the petitioner is a freedom fighter, he may not be for the concessional rate of rent. Moreover, the petitioner has over-stayed for 178 days though he was permitted to occupy the room for five days. On that ground also, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to get relevant certificate from the State Government or Central Government declaring the petitioner as a freedom fighter. Based on such certificate, it is open for the petitioner to claim refund of the amounts, after paying dues, in accordance with law.