A V Amarnathan vs The Chief Justice on 2 July, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

A V Amarnathan vs The Chief Justice on 2 July, 2008

Bench: S.R.Bannurmath

m -rm man cause: or _;_xA._;Ig_I_gnu;.a. xr  ;; Q: tf. ::   _

Dated this the 22:1 day ofduly, 123953.,  'CI 4.
Present; 4' u  '
rm aownm 31;-..xug:'.~:_m s.it,_a}as:xun25;€»:~:fii "  
'rm Karma: 3:.  uzim-.. 
WRIT PE"l'I'i'IOﬂ  - ma
A.V.   .  
S/o 'I'.K.  '  

Aged   
Rfoii 1:v756,1'*B%_M_ai;a, . 

Rajajinagar,--- Ii  ' . "  ~
Bangalore»-560 O19 '    
(Pa;-xy--m»P¢rs,on}v   = _  ...F'E'I'ITI()NER.

 [(By AN. Aniaz.~_®tha§1, Adv.(pa;-my-in-Person);

D

 
 43-oufc of Karnataka,
Vidhalia Vecdhi,

 ..E%g3.ngéi0rc-560 om.

  Chief Minister,

ﬂovcxtament of Karnataka,

 " '"'V:idhana Soudha,
Bangalore.  RESPGNDENT/S.



 

This writ petition is ﬁled under Articles  of

the (1o11stit11n'on of India praying to issue a   
or any Othﬁl' Writ in the 331113 naturt:  ~ _ 
of the Fun Court dam 3.6.:2O{)8:=,A_ '
directing this reapaozadents 3:10';     '£3,

Dhaxwad and Gulbamga   i§V  anti'
certiﬁed bv the concerned oﬁce  the 

This writ petition  ' Ileana" g
this day,   
Tfac  Advocate by profession, has

ﬁled this  a Public Interest Litigation

  as PIL)arra.ying the Ho3:1'blc Chief

---Court of Kanaataka and the Hon'ble Chief

 .(§'.¥::r§ré1'I11:aeI1t of Karnataka. as the respondents

"with at pfaycr to issue a writ of mandamus or any other A " set aside 'Chi? dmision of the Full Court dated 3.5.2008 resolving to commence: sitting of the judges at the 4 circuit benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga and also transfcxring of cases arising from the Disaict Courts of Bagalkot, Bcllary, Bclgaum, Gadag, Havcri, Uttara 4/W {.0 Kannada, Koppal and Dharwad to he heard the Circuit Bench at fjharwad .

1f)is;tric1: Courts of Bidar, .

be heard and decided at and the further resoltgﬁon ci.19Cuﬁt _AAbgf:§51chcs will commence operating _ :2. In__. petitioner claims that 11¢ ::gf petitioner to ﬁle a PIL di;4cc'tiV:{i1iV" :1 Bench in the Northern A'._3i7e.}€3omcs the decision of setting v ._beI1§:;_ﬁcs,,_iAVb1;_t to him the present resolution of the £0 Eﬁiommcnoe the sitting at the circuit benches oii _iV?.3*VVliable to be struck down on the fo}.10m'ng _ _ _4 ' V V' As per the knowledge of the petitioner, the construction of entire building at these mspectjvc places are irlcemplctc and more importantly as 6*"

required under Section 310 of the Corporation Act, obtaining certiﬁcate and permission to occupy and as this procedure commencement of circuit According to the petitioI1e:r',.n»evet1 are reports that the :-'}jIo11'E3}e" Mizﬁster fof "1-"u'olic Works had stated timt tine another 4 a Judge heading the stated on record that the completed by the end of July, it . of respondent No. I/Horfble V to have his name on the inaugural stonetetlie Full Court has hurriedly taken the A. , deeieion it is contended that it is the 1" respondent, V' 'ﬁazho has hurried the process as he is elevated to the Bench of Supreme Court and has to demit the office immediately, the Full Court oniy to facilitate his 4/ name to be on the inaugural staI1¢W__i*:a S' arbitrarily and capriciously; and By way of additional :1' that as per the T' the?' month of Ashada = -"4.-?.,2Q'.58 and as per the custo}i:3A'T--Aa"£1_df'}. i. this month is inauspiciQ;js.__for itﬁé' intca any new a;:tiv:ty.kVk:%:k::s%Ai*uz:ti1§§;~%::ontendcc1 that as per Article 25 of th(;VVC0Vfis1iitf';1ti»t:§1.240f India which provides for , fféedom E)f~-.(§qnsc:ieI1cc, fret: profession, practice and A --. _ of religion, the commcnccmcrnt of the durirag this Ashada Month is against practice and propagation and thereby the AA ' ._rcs§1uﬁon 01' the F1111 Court is in violation uf Article 925 of Canstimﬁon of India.

3. We have heard the pctitiomer at length. é/"

6

4. In so far as the first greumii that the mseiuﬁen of the Fuii Court resolvting to commence the t}';e circuit benches at Dhalwad and Guibarga V' Section 310 of the Karnataka 7 1976 (hereinafter referred toss unmet) is ss¢emea;ea: is to be noted that this "is in '1"e.s'p'ee-t efection, construction and A n (person) private ,3; The in Section is "every person" submit a eempietion certiﬁcate in the . " thereafter obtain' a permission < €3em:e"1issi.e11er of the Muxlicipal Corporation eeeupy the building. It is to be noted that 'person' is not deﬁned under the Act, by the entire Chapter in this regard and e-speciaﬂy "reading the pmvis-ion of SCCtii)I'I 342 which provides ' V' ..._ "'for% exemption in this regard, in our view, it answers the V , fpoi11t raised by the petitioner. 6"'

5. Under Section 342 of the Act, it is stated "jhothiI1g in this Act or any Rule or bye-1aW made be consumed as Iequiring the taking outof the obtaining of any m:r:e1issioIi_1;___ under V' V rule or bye-law in resnect of anv A131:-'iee i1}vi;}1e._'oec1i"_Qzi?:ioi1o' or under the control of the State Government or in I 1. Vthe Cenual Government or the StateV_Goyeijii:nenf.' V iv _ that my lieeneeé;-~.AL4peftei$s--io11s, etc., required under the provisionﬁof one under Section 310) is , ¢ exe;I1:§§;}tV<;-(ii "pLaee.vof occupation or the premises is in oeeupation iofeontroi of the State or Central Ciovernment, or' . .t;Z€ie 'V belongs to the State or the Central It cannot be disputed that the land in ':f_'qLn1eStion" and the High Court buildings constructed at ﬁigaeskad and Gulbarga belong to the Goverrmlezlt and ' {hey would be occupied by the J udieiary for 6""

mmmencammt of (Lin:u:it Benches. Hanna, 4' s3if+:w, there is 3:10 vicrlation of 3€:r::t:ioI1 310 of the ' % 7'. The second grourigi §;}1at4'i:-3f1_§?ii*«r: is the I-i0:n'b1e Minister for by thé Committce headed by Carma: be Completed 4 any material supmft. to ShOW the said statement for FWD and made in what cx5I3t€xt.~ statcamcnt made by pcxson is not bindi1ig.__4§j;;1, especially when the Full Court V. _ 1;a1dui1gvi11:{;.considcrati0:a the report ﬁled by the C§§i3;mitt¢c*s'«.-ﬁonstituted in this regard, has Imanimousiy ré~3c.>Ii:éd V ttiv-"L;;f¢:Vzf1Vimencc the sitﬁng of the respective circuit _ ' 1.3e11<:u1i'1<:sV"'i'.I..fd:V¢14':: 7. 7. 2008. It is to be noted that the alleged statement of the '4 ﬁetitienezr that the Committee headed by azxotirer Judge has stated that the building cannct be complctg/by the end of Juiy is without any material Committee of Judges constituted to make _ submit the I'€'pOI"i ef the work pr£3_ges'SAf0f '' of buildings ef the two Beiietites L. Gtﬂbarga, have made the itax'et"eu1:>t;:1itted the reports. The judgee including the Admhxistraﬁve Jtzflget the place 2 weeks bael-I. the fact that all the 5 etc., necessary and £"c§r the Ceurt functioning are complete, ifrepoxts in this regard, which was . é_i:y if-'u11___BeI1ch after due deliberation. " 9. Ii: be nested that the plan cf the buildings sanctioned long back was in respect of t _ permanent-gtﬁeneh anti as such nearriy 10 court hails, one ' H H 'T ieeurt fer the Hozfble Chief Justice and corresponding other rooms have been planned, but due to the _ «« gate? ﬂhangﬁf, enly circuit benches were deeidﬁaréybe 10 estabﬁshed and as such, the concentration 'for eompieﬁon of 5 court halls and necessary noted, the Committees eonsﬁtutefl physics} VCI'iﬁCati(')H have s1;:.bmitted_ is the'; that so far as for oom1Ixenoenientiof_ tI1e"<3oiIfi's .t':,1I1ctioI1ing from "?=h July 2008 I-Iieiiee, we find no meritin this t:V>oIite1itioi:i..._ A i 9 i

10. the petitioner that the Full at "of the respondent No.1/HoIi'b1e Chief Justiceiof KxV'a_I'rx has resolved to commence the _Wor_i<ii;tig of thelieirciiitsbenclies on 7th of Juiy 2008 and as petitioner, the }"IOI"}'i.')I€: Chief Justice is iiitsrested his name on the inaugural stone as he eleizateti the Bench of the Hon'bIe Supreme Court, is A "gmisehievous and irresponsible statement. The stiéilggle of the people of this area i.e., 'Northern Kainataka' it (Bombay Karnataka and Hyderabad Karnataka) to have a High Court: Bench in this region, is a stzrugle of last 50 '$2' 11 years. However, it is only in the "the Government and the High Court of Kmﬂataiiéﬁ, setting up of circuit benches. Dike to 'J.§1'i'iOL'iS £10 2 progress was made and only foundation stone, no further» ipmgres' Conservation went on. It is only "p3'.esentV'Hon'ble Chief Justice took charge as '2 '£2 years back , persuaded the = haif a century old dream ofﬁaﬁs Only it is now that the circuit to commence sittm' g. Infaot people of from the northern regioI1.,_...fEom all Walks of life have been joy and gratitude to the Honfble Chief the Hoxfble Judges. As such this allegation ddaﬁaiosé VHon'ble Chief Justice is baseless, mischievous A diieatie with a maiaﬁde ixnentiozi. It is also to be noted V' the decision is not of the Hon'b1e «Chief ufdustiee/respondent No.1 alone, but it is the entire Full Court consisting of 40 Ho3:1'ble Judges, who after V 12 deliberation have unaiiimously taken cﬁmmence the circuit benches a;i;"}Di1aIfw9_ad_; Ciuibarga 7. an 7*?" July 2008.' Hence, the siéatjciﬁgént that "the: attitude: of the Chiizi' Justice in this rega1'd:-is'; A' kiapﬁcious"

is not only far from made 13:;

bring down and an attack against head' . As such, we find absoIutc:i'_V"ii'0 Aiiiexiifjiii coiitéiition also. if?-Q" far "the last contention that the * (if sitting of Cijntlllit benches at "Guibarga during Ashada Masa, which acécijdizigté Hindu tenets is inauspicious and thus the 'of the Full Court to commence the: 831536 during is viulative of Article :25 of the Cozastitutiora of K is conccmm, we are sum}? to note that the petitioner is a leaizned Advocate and shouid know the basic principles of the Constitutioii of India. Ours is 11:31: a V 13 religion based country, the very '_ Constitution of India states t}1at."w1x.2eA tlse j'In'd;is,' ; having solemnly reseived te _ ff1:-zefha " ._a Severeigl, Secﬁaﬁst Secular £}eE1ecr..'«£tie Rep1;biie"';"'C}urs'is a secular C01iI1tI'_V wherein iﬁfzatexéer may be his caste and creed and free pzrofessien, praelﬂee of religion as enshrined 'CoI1sI:it:u1:ion of India. pa;rtic11lar sect, reiigion or %. .211:s:m working of any of the 3 1imbs,_ to w¢r3;'on:y: tjildef the tenets of that religion alone. V' {he 'vs-Gonsfitiiﬁen, the Courts have been pmvided e'sf'éﬂ3iis}}ief:}"_j?:o meet the need of the every eiﬁzen of the eeeney to any easte er ereecl. The justice is 'eommtirzﬁibr all the people Whether they belong te Hrindu any ether religion or sect. The peﬁtioner being an x :A_d.5vocate, shsuid have been aware of the fact that «~ Karnataka State is not a Hindu State, but is a'secu1ar state and the High Court of Karnataka or the ciretﬁﬁ V"

benches of Karnataka are not Hindu " .01' Karnataka or the Hindu Circuit Bench. feels that he cannot work V every freedom is availablc .1'ji1::1V4i:vzA:1_»:'£'w-to The petitioner has not statec'i'V"i::§."his eritiris' being at Hindu is not this Ashaéa period or not essential and necessary. Etje$ii"s;§.i}*?e tzikcijuiiiéiai Iisﬁss about this same as he has Court for the: last many years. ignored of the fact tltuat even amongst us; finsfté are different auspicious or '~ .,4iI1ai;.isi3i:;:§.D11sA. 1no11'ths'; Far sxampis, Iycngar and Kodava, Hindu do not 1'ec0g1is<:: 'Ashada' as i11a'u3.spiciot1s;, 'T as they have another 111o111:h in tiaeir '<;*.a1snd:;énf_ 1~aI1c1 even naamiages are perfontued dU.I'i:{"Ig As such, the contention of violation of Article 25 3316 Constitution of India is also Without basis and is smade only for the sake of pubiicity and cheap popularity. As such, we ﬁnd absolutely :10 gound worth to C{)ZI1SidCI' 50' 15 the prayer of the petitioner for issuing manda;::1t1'e1'cj'o1Fj:'an3:' other writ, stopping the eoInn1e13.oen3ent"'ofo.';Vett1 e _ benches at Dhalwad and ~ it 12'. Before closing, We Supreme Court has time and restrictions in respect of noting the fact that many litigation is being vested interest, to gain cheap score against individual. We ﬁnd that the ttptfblio interest litigation is one of . _sucI_r;' ﬁled oniy for cheap popularity. The '-..Apetitione:*'§1g*'ie:'i11ed this pe'a't.ioI1 without any basis and by peﬁtion, in our view, it is aimed only against [the 1;' respondent/}ion'b1e Chief Justice of Karnataka and iijiiilﬁtitfltiﬂll agamlnﬁ st the entire Full Court thereby .___"':"a.tVter11'p1jng to tarnish the image of the entire judiciary. "aﬁinee this is a ciassie ease of mis-use of the brand name of Public Interest Litigation to gain cheap popularity and 5""

V. 16 publicity and since we dc: not find any clemcycﬁwtﬁf much 1683 any kind 01' public hxjgtzrcst find that this is a fit case ta "

R's.i25,000/- m be paid byrhﬁé Détitiémcr %4lw¢c;;{é% fmm today, to the A copy of the order be sent for further action, in case the cost} Within the time: limit be made as if it is arrrears of 'a V' 'king is rejected.

Sd/1 Judge sd/1, Iudige'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court