Karnataka High Court
Mr. S. Shivakumar vs Mro-Tek Realty Limited on 10 December, 2020
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.9331 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
MR. S. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O MR. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT #13
SOUTH PARK ROAD
NEHRUNAGAR
SESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. E. ARUN PRADESH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. MRO-TEK REALTY LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MRO-TEK LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956, HAIVNG ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT #6, NEW BEL ROAD
CHIKKAMARANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 054
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
MR. SRIVATSA GANESH
2. M/S UMIYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.29/3
H.M. STRAFFORD, 2ND FLOOR
7TH CORSS ROAD
VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. ANIRUDDHA MEHTA
2
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
COMMANDANT GENERAL HOME GUARDS
AND DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENCE
AND DIRECTOR GENERAL
KARNATAKA STATE FIRE AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES
NO.1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 042 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.N. NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
AND/OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER AGAINST R-3 THEREBY
PROHIBITING IT FROM ISSUING A FINAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE IN
RESPECT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY R-1 AND 2 ON
THE COMPOSITE PROPERTY, PENDING ADJUDICATION OF THE LIS AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Shri E Arun Pradesh, learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.2 and Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA for respondent No.3-State.
3
2. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.12.2017 to the Additional Director General of Police ("ADGP" for short), Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force ("BMTF" for short) contending inter alia that building plan No.BBMP/Addl.Dir.JDNORTH/0097/16-17 was accorded in favour of one Shri Anirudh Mehta, GPA Holder of respondent No.1 on 25.03.2017 in respect of Sy.Nos.50/6, 53/1, 53/2, 54/1, 54/8, 54/2 and 54/3 of Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Ward No.7 of Yelahanka Zone.
The survey copy obtained from the Survey and Settlement Department shows a pathway (kaaludaari) in Sy.No.54/2. The village map also shows pathway in dotted lines. The applicant, Shri Anirudh Mehta has made a deliberate attempt to conceal pathway. With these averments, petitioner requested the ADGP, BMTF, to take criminal action against Shri Anirudh Mehta.
3. Sub-Inspector of Police, BMTF, issued in all three notices dated 24.07.2018, 11.10.2018 and 26.10.2018 (Annexure-M) and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP" for short) issued a notice dated 15.10.2018 (Annexure-P) to respondent 4 No.2. Respondents No.1 and 2 challenged the notices issued by the BMTF and also BBMP in W.Ps.No.1801-1807/2019 with a prayer to quash the same.
4. Petitioner also filed W.P.No.8508/2020 praying for a Writ of Prohibition against BBMP from issuing a completion certificate.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocates for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the said writ petitions have been disposed of by a common order dated 07.12.2020. W.Ps.No.1801-1807/2019 filed by respondents No.1 and 2 have been allowed and W.P.No.8508/2020 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with cost of Rs.2,00,000/-
6. Learned Senior Advocates raised a preliminary objection and strongly contended that this writ petition is filed in continuation of W.P.No.8508/2020 is nothing but an abuse of process of law because the prayers are similar to the one made in W.P.No.8508/2020. They contended that this procedure is unknown to law.
5
7. In reply, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the copy of the order is not yet released. Therefore, time may be granted to make submissions after copy is received.
8. To a pointed question as to what was pending 'lis', learned advocate for the petitioner answered that it was adjudication of the complaint before the ADGP, BMTF.
9. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
10. In the conspectus of the facts recorded hereinabove, in substance, petitioner has approached the ADGP, BMTF, to take criminal action against the GPA Holder of respondent No.1- Company. BMTF as also BBMP initiated action of issuing notices. The same have been quashed in W.Ps.No.1801-1807/2019. In W.P.No.8508/2020, petitioner has sought for a Writ of Prohibition to BBMP from issuing the completion certificate and it has been dismissed with costs.
6
11. It is relevant to note that prayer clause (b) in W.P.No.8508/2020, which reads as follows is verbatim of prayer clause (b) in this writ petition;
"Issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and/or any person claiming through them, in any manner, from occupying the building developed on the Composite Property, pending adjudication of the lis;"
12. Having filed W.P.No.8508/2020, petitioner has ventured upon filing this writ petition with main prayer as in aid of adjudication of 'lis' which according to the learned advocate for the petitioner is consideration of his complaint before the BMTF. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of petitioner's complaint, notices were issued by BMTF and the same were challenged in W.Ps.No.1801-1807/2019 notwithstanding the said writ petition and during pendency of W.P.No.8508/2020, petitioner has presented this writ petition in which the Director General of Police, Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services, has been made as respondent No.3. This is nothing but absolute abuse of process of law.
7
13. It is not disputed by learned advocate for the petitioner that W.P.No.8508/2020 has been dismissed with costs of Rs.2,00,000/-. By entertaining cases like this writ petition load on the Court is increasing by the day. In the circumstances, as deterrent measures, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- payable to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. In view of dismissal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE AV