Karnataka High Court
Smt. R.N. Shashikala vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44531-DB
WA No. 355 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. R.N. SHASHIKALA,
W/O MR G VIJAYASHEKHARA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24/1 25/1, 5TH CROSS,
SATHYA MARGA, SIDDARTHA NAGARA
MYSURU-570 011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VANI B
BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE - 570 005.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
ZONAL COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
ZONAL OFFICE, NO.9, GAYATHRIPURAM,
MYSORE - 570 019.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44531-DB
WA No. 355 of 2023
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
MYSURU TALUK, NAZARBAD,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 010.
5. THE ZONAL OFFICER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
ZONAL OFFICE, NO.8, MYSORE - 570 005.
6. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
NAZARBAD POLICE STATION,
NAZARBAD CIRCLE, M M ROAD,
NAZARBAD, MYSORE - 570 010.
7. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
S B JAYARAMA EXTN,
ALANDHALLI, BANNUR RING ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 010.
8. HANCHYA GRAM PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
HANCHYA VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK - 570 019.
9. SRI. N NANJEGOWDA,
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, SHRINIDHI,
NEAR MAHADESHWARA NURSING HOME,
SATHYAMARGA SIDDHARTHA NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 011.
10. SMT GITHA,
W/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, SHRINIDHI,
NEAR MAHADESHWARA NURSING HOME,
SATHYAMARGA SIDDHARTHA NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 011.
11. SRI MITHUN C V,
S/O LATE VEERBHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44531-DB
WA No. 355 of 2023
PROP. AARYA BAKERY
12. SRI. SHIVANNA,
S/O NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PROP BHAIRESHWARA TRADERS,
13. M/S MAHALAKSHMI SWEETS
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
NOT KNOWN
RESPONDENT NOS.11 TO 13 ARE
HAVING THEIR BUSINESS AT
SIDDARTHA NAGAR TERRISON COLLEGE CIRCLE,
BANNUR ROAD, MYSURU-570 029.
14. SRI. Y K SWAMY,
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF ARJUN ELECTRONICS,
EX GRAM PANCHAYAT CHAIRMAN NO.356,
YERAGANAHALLI BANNUR ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 029.
15. SRI. MANNAIAH,
OCC MUSIC TEACHER,
AGED 68 YEARS,
NO.59, 4TH STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR,
MYSORE-570 023.
16. SRI M NANJAPPA,
S/O MADEGOWDA,
PROP. KERALAPURA CHAMUNDESHWARI
MILITARY HOTEL,
AGED 58 YEARS,
EX GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER,
AGED 50 YEARS,
NO.133/4, KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD,
YERAGANAHALLI, SHAKTINAGAR P O,
MYSORE - 570 029.
17. SRI. S GURUSWAMY,
S/O SANNEGOWDA,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:44531-DB
WA No. 355 of 2023
AGED 62 YEARS,
PROP. SHILPA BAR AND RESTAURANT,
18. SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O VENKATEGOWDA,
AGED 55 YEARS,
PROP. CAKE BAZAAR,
RESPONDENT NOS.17 AND 18 ARE
HAVING THEIR BUSINESS AT
SIDDHARTHA NAGAR TERSIAN COLLEGE CIRCLE
BANNUR ROAD, MYSORE - 570 011.
19. SRI GAVISIDDIAH,
S/O SRI MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NO.404, 3RD CROSS, JANATHA COLONY,
YERAGANAHALLI, MYSURU-570 029.
20. SRI. GURUSWAMY,
S/O MOGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.404, 3RD CROSS, JANATHA COLONY,
YERAGANAHALLI, MYSURU-570 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 TO 4, 6 & 7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 09.09.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.
12504/2021 (LB-RES) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:44531-DB
WA No. 355 of 2023
JUDGEMENT
This appeal by a non party seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 09.09.2022 entered in W.P.No.12504/2021. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client was not a party eo nomine to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge and therefore the order in question which adversely affects him needs to be voided.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as it is open to the appellant to file another writ petition seeking review of the order put in challenge before us in the light of the decision of Apex Court in SHIVDEO SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1963 SC 1909 wherein paragraph 8 reads as under:
"The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art.226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:44531-DB WA No. 355 of 2023 Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla' J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J".
3. The decision in SHIVDEO SINGH supra has been reiterated by the Apex Court in S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY vs. V.NARAYANA REDDY, (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1034. That apart, in more or less, a similar fact matrix in Writ Appeal No.344/2023 (KLR-RES) between Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State, we have relegated the appellant therein to the remedy of review and therefore we cannot take a different view in the matter, no special -7- NC: 2023:KHC:44531-DB WA No. 355 of 2023 circumstances having been shown. After all, similar cases need to be treated similarly, is a popular norm of adjudication.
4. All the above being said, we need to observe that if writ petition is filed as indicated above for review of the impugned order, the period spent in prosecuting this appeal and the period during which the appellant was not aware of the proceedings in the subject writ petition including the impugned order, the same shall be liable to be discounted while considering arguable delay & laches, if any.
With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed off, keeping open all contentions of the parties.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14