Karnataka High Court
M/S Pushpam Realty vs The Chief Secretary on 19 September, 2023
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33745
WP No. 5677 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.5677 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
M/S. PUSHPAM REALTY
REGD. OFFICE AT NO.191,
1ST CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR EAST, BYRASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560011.
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR ABHIRAM .M,
AGED 40 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.A.DEVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHASHIDHAR BELAGUMBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SUMA B N VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33745
WP No. 5677 of 2023
BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT,
MADIKERI-571201.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
MADIKERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NEAR KSRTC DEPOT,
MADIKERE-571201.
6. SRI. DEGA DEVKUMAR REDDY
S/O LATE DEGA DEVKUMAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NOW R/AT VILLA NO.33, COOK STREET,
10 DOWNING, WHITE FIELD,
HOSAKOTE ROAD,
KANNAMANGALA,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560067.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI.P.V.CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SMT. ANJANA C.H., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER
REPRESENTATIONS DATED 25.11.2022 AND PASS THE
NECESSARY ORDER VIDE ANXX-X, X1 TO X4 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:33745
WP No. 5677 of 2023
ORDER
Heard Sri. R.A.Devanand, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Shashidhar Belagumba for the petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri. Ashok S. Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for Smt. Anjana C.H for the respondent No.6.
2. Reliefs sought in the present petition are in the nature of a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 25.11.2022 as per Annexure-X, X1 to X4 and for a further direction to the respondent No.6 to cooperate with the petitioner for completion of the project and to get his share as agreed in the compromise petition dated 22.09.2018 in A.C.No.44/2018 vide Annexure-G. -4- NC: 2023:KHC:33745 WP No. 5677 of 2023
3. A bare perusal of the contents of the writ petition and the relief sought therein would suggest that the dispute is one between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 arising out a private contract. It appears that due to dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been initiated and have substantially been completed.
4. Nonetheless, petition of this nature and the reliefs as sought herein cannot be entertained under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. As regards the prayer for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner is concerned, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the said prayer would also fall within the terms of the contract which was subject matter of adjudication under arbitration proceedings. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:33745 WP No. 5677 of 2023
6. The aforesaid factual and legal position of the matter is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the petition, reserving all liberty and keeping open all the contentions of the parties to be urged before the appropriate forum, if required, petition is dismissed as not entertainable.
SD/-
JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8