Karnataka High Court
Anand N Tiger vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2017
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
WP No.43032/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.43032/2017 (GM-RES) PIL
BETWEEN:
1. ANAND N. TIGER
S/O NAGENDRAPPA TIGER
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: SOCIAL WORKER
R/O: OPP: SBI BANK, TIGER COMPLEX
MAIN ROAD, CHINCHOLI
CHINCHOLI TALUK
KALABURAGI DISTRICT
2. A.NAGESH
S/O K.ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC: SOCIAL WORKER
R/AT W/150, H.M.T. COLONY
SECTOR-3, JALAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 013
3. KALLAPPA
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: ARTIST AND SOCIAL WORKER
R/AT GANJNOOR, GANJNOOR POST
YADAGIRI TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT-585 201 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.M.CHANDRARASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No.43032/2017
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA AND CULTURAL
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA BORDER AREA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, ROOM NO.107
M.S.BUILDING, BEHIND CANTEEN
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA BORDER AREA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, ROOM NO.107
M.S.BUILDING, BEHIND CANTEEN
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
4. PRAKASH MATTHIHALLI @ MATTHIKATTI
S/O NOT KNOWN, SECTION OFFICER
KARNATAKA BORDER AREA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, ROOM NO.107
M.S.BUILDING, BEHIND CANTEEN
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
KALABURAGI-585 102
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585 401
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 010
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 020
-3-
WP No.43032/2017
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA-571 511
10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA-577 501
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101
12. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKURU DISTRICT
TUMKURU-572 101
13. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 003
14. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
KODAGU-571 201
15. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313
16. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE-570 001
17. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIJAPURA DISTRICT
BIJAPURA-586 101
18. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELLARI DISTRICT
BELLARI-583 101
19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
YADAGIRI-585 101
20. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHURU DISTRICT, RAICHURU-584 101
-4-
WP No.43032/2017
21. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
BELAGAVI-590 001
22. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
UTTARA KANNADA-584 101
23. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT
BIDAR-585 401 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIVEK HOLLA, HCGP FOR R1 & R5 TO R23;
SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 MORE
PARTICULARLY THE R-5 TO 23 NOT TO RELEASE THE FUNDS IN
FAVOUR OF THE BENEFICIARIES AS SELECTED IN TERMS OF THE
PAPER ADVERTISEMENT DTD.9.5.2017 VIDE ANNEX-C, ISSUED
BY THE R-3 AS THE SAID SELECTION IS CONTRARY TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, 2010 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.12.2017, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
1. Petitioners have presented this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, inter alia praying for a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 and particularly, respondents No.5 to 23 not to release funds in favour of the beneficiaries selected pursuant to an advertisement dated 9.5.2017 -5- WP No.43032/2017 issued by Karnataka Border Area Development Corporation ('Corporation' for short).
2. We have heard Shri G.M.Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri Vivek Holla, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 & 5 to 23 and Shri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4.
3. Petitioners' case is that, the Corporation issued the aforesaid advertisement calling for eligible Societies in the border area to apply for grant of funds to conduct programmes in the border areas mentioned in the advertisement. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the selection made by the Corporation is not on merit, resulting in release of funds in favour of ineligible Societies/Organizations.
4. Shri Vivek Holla, learned HCGP for the respondents No.1 & 5 to 23, contended that the beneficiaries under the scheme are selected based on merit and the allegations leveled by the petitioners are wholly unsubstantiated. -6- WP No.43032/2017
5. Shri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, the contesting respondents, at the outset, raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. Adverting to annexure-R1, filed along with the Statement of Objections, contended that the first respondent is the Secretary of 'Jyothi Bapule Trust (R)', Chincholi and the said Trust sought for sanction of funds to conduct cultural activities. The first petitioner, also did file a writ petition in W.P.No.204031/2017 before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court and the said writ petition stood dismissed as withdrawn. He has placed a copy of the Order dated 22.8.2017 in the said writ petition for our perusal.
6. Shri Naganand, further submitted that, the Corporation, in furtherance of it's avowed objects calls for applications from the eligible organizations to conduct such programmes and projects described in the advertisement. After a strict scrutiny, the authorities select beneficiaries. The first petitioner, being unsuccessful in his -7- WP No.43032/2017 attempt to get funds from the authority and having failed in his attempt to seek enforcement of his ostensible right before this Court, has now cleverly come up with this writ petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation by including two other petitioners.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. We are prima facie convinced that, the first petitioner did seek for financial assistance to conduct cultural programmes as per annexure-R1. Shri Naganand, is right in his submission that the first petitioner has been unsuccessful in obtaining any relief in the writ petition filed before the Kalaburagi Bench, referred to supra and come up before this Court again by filing this petition as a Public Interest Litigation.
9. Admittedly, the Corporation is a statutory body. We trust and hope that, it shall endeavour to scrutinize the applications strictly in accordance with the norms and select -8- WP No.43032/2017 the most eligible candidates/organizations to pursue it's cause.
10. In the facts and circumstances, we see no element of Public Interest in this case.
11. Resultantly, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE cp*