Karnataka High Court
Sri Praveen Kumar vs Mangalore City Corporation on 24 October, 2016
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
Before
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION NO.51117 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O NARAYANA NAMBIAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3-13-1196
MAROLI KAIKAMBA
KULSHEKAR P.O.,
MANGALORE - 575 005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.UDAYA PRAKASH M., ADV.)
AND
1. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
LALBAGH
MANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER - 575 008.
2. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
URWA,
MANGALORE - 575 008
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
Date of Order 24.10.2016 in WP No.51117/2016
Sri.Praveen Kumar
Vs
Mangalore City Corporation
2/8
WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE LEGAL ACTION
AGAINST THE ERSON NAMED VIDE.., REPRESENTATIONS
AT ANNEXURES-E, F & G DATED 14.06.2016, 21.07.2016
RESPECTIVELY WITHIN THE TIME TO BE FIXED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
THE PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARNG THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr.Udaya Prakash M., Adv. for Petitioner The present petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus direction against the respondent- Mangalore City Corporation for prohibiting his neighbour, Sri.Chandrashekar Karkera and his brothers for raising the construction illegally without obtaining proper licence and sanction from the city corporation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that for similar reasons, he had filed O.S.No.250/2002 in the competent Civil Court, which was decreed in his faovur Date of Order 24.10.2016 in WP No.51117/2016 Sri.Praveen Kumar Vs Mangalore City Corporation 3/8 on 30.06.2008, against which the first appeal was preferred by the defendant neighbour Mr.Chandrashekar karkera which came to be partly allowed by the first appellate Court in R.A.No.135/2008 on 28.09.2013, against which the Civil Second Appeal viz., R.S.A.No.363/2014 filed by the present petitioner is pending in this Court.
3. This offshoot litigation has been filed for the limited purpose of seeking a mandamus direction to the respondent-Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation for considering the objections of the present petitioner against the grant of sanction of the licence to the said neighbour-defendant-respondent in the Civil Second Appeal filed by the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that on 14.06.2016, he gave the first representation in this regard to the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation and another representation Date of Order 24.10.2016 in WP No.51117/2016 Sri.Praveen Kumar Vs Mangalore City Corporation 4/8 on 21.07.2016 and had even lodged a police complaint on 04.09.2016.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is constrained to observe that the present litigant even though having certain grievance against the respondent-City Corporation and the concerned neighbour, Mr.Chandrashekar Karkera cannot be permitted to scatter & spread the litigation at various forums by filing various kinds of petitions and complaints for essentially one dispute. Once a particular appeal or petition is pending at the competent forum viz., R.S.A.No.363/14 is pending in the High Court itself, by seeking suitable amendment in the pleadings with the permission of the Court in view of subsequent developments, the petitioner can always seek appropriate relief and remedy at that very forum. Allowing such multiple litigations at the instance of one of the aggrieved party obviously is open to allow Date of Order 24.10.2016 in WP No.51117/2016 Sri.Praveen Kumar Vs Mangalore City Corporation 5/8 conflicting orders and judgments to be rendered by different Courts. Such a practice therefore, deserves to be strongly deprecated and properly checked.
5. Therefore, without entertaining this writ petition, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application in the pending Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure itself seeking the leave of the Court to suitably amend the pleadings and seek such relief if at all he is aggrieved in the matter.
6. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that the mandamus jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be used by the litigant in such a hot haste and casual manner. Once, the petitioner or the litigant has approached the any Government authority by way of representation in the recent past, the litigant should pursue the concerned authority to its logical end.
Date of Order 24.10.2016 in WP No.51117/2016 Sri.Praveen Kumar Vs Mangalore City Corporation 6/8
7. Unless the Court finds an absolute reticence or consistent omission on the part of the public authority in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him and not passing suitable orders on such representations made by the concerned litigant, the Court cannot and should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction directing the public authority to do what he is otherwise also expected in law to do. Such frequent use of this jurisdiction may result in demeaning the very purpose for which this jurisdiction is vested in the Court in exercising extraordinary powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India & it will be counter productive. The wider the powers, the greater is the circumspection, with which the Court should exercise such jurisdiction. Issuance of mandamus directions just for askance in these type of cases without allowing even the breathing time to public authorities to do the needful on their own part may result in serious Date of Order 24.10.2016 in WP No.51117/2016 Sri.Praveen Kumar Vs Mangalore City Corporation 7/8 prejudice to the process which the public authority is expected & deserves to be allowed to undertake such cases.
8. This Court finds a flood of such writ petitions filed for such apparently innocuous mandamus directions to the public authorities majorly for the municipal councils and Corporations and Development Authorities like BDA, BBMP and Municipal Corporation and Councils throughout the State, which not only burdens this Court with a flood of such writ petitions of this nature but does not allow the public authorities to function in the smooth manner for considering the representations to be made by such litigants in appropriate manner. Such a practice defeats the very purpose for which such authorities exist and therefore, the Court cannot be overzealous to invoke its jurisdiction of this nature in such case and on the other hand, it should be slow in doing the same.
Date of Order 24.10.2016 in WP No.51117/2016 Sri.Praveen Kumar Vs Mangalore City Corporation 8/8
9. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction to the petitioner to either pursue its representation with the concerned authorities of the Municipal Corporation or to seek appropriate remedy in the pending litigation in the form of RSA No.363/2014 before this Court.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Judge SS