In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court emphasized that judges should not assume the extraordinary powers granted exclusively to the Apex Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution, comparing such overreach to acting like Mughals.

A division bench of the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, recently overturned an order by a single judge bench, which had directed the City Municipal Council of Channapatna to extend the lease of a shop allocated to a disabled individual from the stipulated 12 years to 20 years. The division bench emphasized that the single judge had overstepped by extending the lease period, stating, "No writ can be issued in derogation of law. Writ Courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law."

They further remarked that judges should not assume the extraordinary powers vested exclusively in the Apex Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution, comparing such overreach to acting like Mughals.

The court further said “The learned Single Judge could not have lightly construed such an instrument of law to the prejudice of public interest and conversely to the advantage of a private citizen…Obviously, they cannot arrogate to themselves the extraordinary power vested in the Apex Court of the country under Article 142 of the Constitution. After all, we are Judges and therefore, cannot act like mughals of bygone era. More is not necessary to specify.”

The case began when the City Municipal Council of Channapatna issued a notification in September 2009 to lease certain shopping premises via auction. Siddaramu, an individual with an 80% locomotor disability, was allocated a shop under the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, along with the Karnataka Rules, 2003, and later under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The initial lease period was set for 12 years, with a forfeiture clause for non-compliance.

Siddaramu challenged the lease period, and the single judge bench initially upheld his challenge, extending the lease to 20 years. However, during the appeal process, Siddaramu passed away, and his widow continued to oppose the appellate proceedings. The division bench, consisting of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, overturned the single judge's order, stressing that the single judge had overstepped by extending the lease period.

They emphasized that "No writ can be issued in derogation of law. Writ Courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law," and remarked that judges should not assume the extraordinary powers vested exclusively in the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, comparing such overreach to acting like Mughals.

The division bench clarified that the shop allotment was not the result of a public auction but was a statutory order due to Siddaramu’s disability. They held that such allotments are not inheritable, stating, “Allotment of the kind comes to an end either by efflux of time or by death of the allottee, whichever is earlier.”

The court also highlighted that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 do not protect the dependents of a deceased disabled person. It rejected the contention that the allottee was equivalent to auctioneers with 20-year leases, noting the clear differences in the modes of allotment.

However, acknowledging the hardship that immediate eviction would cause, the court granted a temporary reprieve to Siddaramu’s widow, allowing her to stay in the shop until December 31, 2024, to facilitate relocation. The court stated, “Some reasonable period to vacate the shop premises needs to be granted so that business can be shifted to some other place,” while directing the Municipality to consider her request for a license with leniency to aid this transition.

Moreover, the court held “A lease being a matter of contract, Courts cannot rewrite the same, in the absence of statutory enablement, kind of which avail in Labour Legislations. That being the position, impugned order of the learned Single Judge directing extension of the lease tenure suffers from legal infirmity and therefore, is liable to be voided.”

Consequently, the single bench order was set aside, and Siddaramu's widow was allowed to occupy the shop until December 31, 2024, subject to the usual conditions.