0 IN THE HI&h cOURT 0- RARNA1AKA AT BANGAL0r i)rfrU T Ht5 THE 26 hAY OF frt7 1098 bEE ORb THE F E MRJUhTTcE CHANDRASHEKA A A 7144 of 1997 BE THEE rakash Kotian, agec about 35 yrs. 5/0 Narayana Kotian, Prop, due starti Canteen, Shirva village, Udupi taluk, n.. .. Petitioner; (By Sri, M/,, Shetty & Hegde AND: 1, Asst, Comnissioner, Kundapur, O.K. 2. Secretary, Shirva Grain tYanc hay at, Shijua Village, Uduhi, Taluk, O.K. .,, Respondes; K.Nagaraja !CGP for Ri; Sri, O.K. Bhat for R2) Tnli t o s Ta hod 000f T AT t 2/6 or I _he ( 1t IT of in A Ta ing to no o tile order Anne —A dated 28—2—I) in RI andtieorder Annex e t 0- 96. I nq trr niehimir 0 O CT I 3 tJr> 1 h t I — L — ORDER The petitioner filed an ap olicat ion for renewal £ the trade lievre to carry on the businessfr -Iotcl near toe Bis st ni. 1 he sa C application was rejected by th Gram Panchayath. ggrieved by the said order the netitioner preferred a appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Cjrrinjssjon by his order dated 28—2—1997 smissed the appeal con firming the order of the Gram Panchayath. These t orders are challenged in this petition, 2) The remises in which the petitioner was carry ing on business belong to the Gram Panchayath. After the expiry of the lease in respect of the said building the Gram Panchayath has not renewed the lease. If that is so the question of granting trade licence per itting the petitioner o rry on ousiness in the asil irx i resoect of aid toe ‘cc s not 4 ,rnsis— tin , does not arise, n the sai view of the satter, I find that there is no reason to interfere with tt order pessedby the Assistant Conruissioner. 3) In the event if the Gram Panchayath were to r n t toe lea e in favou £ the petit orer in e pact of ne sildi g, i s e thc eti ioner t Ic ftc appli a on fo ra £ tr e I ence t on the hi mess, ito this tatlon, wi t ‘ition is rejected. sa& F’ A 4W