ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 13-11-2014 impugned at Annexure-J to the petition. The fixation of rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. sought to be justified under the said order at Annexure-J is prayed to be quashed. The petitioners are the owners of private godowns, which were constructed by them on securing loans. The respondents have utilised the godowns belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of storing food grains such as paddy and jowar for distribution to the Ration Card Holders under the scheme "Anna Bhagya". The petitioners contend that the rate of rent fixed at Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. by the respondents is arbitrary and meager. In that light, the petitioners, at the first instance had made a request to enhance the amount by filing a representation. Since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P. Nos. 5909 to 5913 of 2014. This Court by the order dated 4-3-2014 had taken note of the grievance of the petitioners and had directed that the representation be considered. Pursuant to the same, the respondents have considered the representation and through the impugned endorsement vide order dated 13-11-2014 have informed the petitioners that the rent fixed at Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. is justified and the request of the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is in that view, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. The respondents have filed the objection statement seeking to justify their action. It is contended that the requirement of the godowns had existed as the food grains were to be stored for the purpose of public distribution and other godowns belonging to different owners had also been utilised by the respondents and in all cases where the godowns were situated at Davangere, the rent had been fixed at Rs. 5/- per sq. ft., which has been accepted by the said owners and in that regard, the list of the godowns and the rent as has been fixed and accepted by the owners, is also relied as per Annexure-R1. It is also contended that the claim as put forth by the petitioners by referring to the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, would not be justified since the fixation therein is not in the same manner as has been done in the present case. It is also contended that the claim as put forth by the petitioners by referring to the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, would not be justified since the fixation therein is not in the same manner as has been done in the present case. It is therefore, contended that the prayer as made in the petitions is not sustainable. 3. In the light of the rival pleadings, I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for respondent 3 and perused the petition papers. Firstly, with regard to the contention as put forth on behalf of the petitioners that such utilisation of the godowns without negotiation would not be justified, it is to be seen that the order in that regard was passed by the 2nd respondent invoking the power under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Though the power vested therein is with regard to the Regulation of the distribution of essential commodities, there is no specific provision made to compulsorily utilise a private property without due process of law. In that view, presently, the issue is only with regard to the appropriate rent to be fixed in respect of the godowns, even if such godowns belonging to private parties are utilised for a public purpose by the respondents. *To be read as Essential Commodities Act, 1955 4. The petitioners no doubt contend that keeping in view the investment made by them for construction of the godowns and if the manner of fixation of the rent by the Karnataka Warehousing Corporation is kept in view, the rent should have been fixed at Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. At the outset, a perusal of the notification of the Karnataka Warehousing Corporation does not give a clear indication with regard to the rent being fixed at Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. in all circumstances. Be that as it may, since it has already been indicated herein that the utilisation of the godowns is not under any provision made under the Act, in any event, the satisfaction of the owner of the premises with regard to the rent being paid by the respondents, even if it is for a public purpose, would be relevant for the purpose of consideration. Therefore, in such circumstances, when a grievance is made by the petitioners that the rent fixed at Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. is not adequate and an enhanced rent is required to be paid and the respondents have taken note of the representation and rejected the request of the petitioners through the impugned endorsement, this Court in a writ petition cannot enter upon the disputed questions about fixation of the rent related to a property, more so, in respect of a property, where the respondents along with the objection statement have produced Annexure-R1, i.e., the list of the godowns that have been requisitioned by the respondents and the uniform rent, which has been fixed in all such cases. It is seen that in the same area the rent that has been fixed by the respondents is at Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. Therefore, in that circumstance, even if the petitioners were to contend that the fixation was not justified and a higher rent was required to be fixed, sufficient materials should be placed and such disputed questions of fact would have to be resolved in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law as evidence to be recorded will have to be analysed. Therefore, though this Court is of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in arbitrarily utilising godowns belonging to the petitioners and fixing the rent unilaterally, if such fixation of rent has caused loss to the petitioners and if the petitioners were to establish that a higher rent was payable for the period during which the godowns belonging to the petitioners were utilised, the same would have to be established in law by producing sufficient materials, for the appropriate Court to come to such conclusion in the matter. Hence, to the said extent, liberty is reserved to the petitioners. Accordingly, petitions stand disposed of.