Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavannappa C Kulenur @ Basavaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, S.N.Satyanarayana
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.5633 OF 2013 (GM-RES-PIL)
C/w WRIT PETITION No.22811 OF 2012 (GM-RES-PIL)
IN W.P.No.5633/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BASAVANNAPPA C KULENUR
@ BASAVARAJ,
S/O CHIKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT GOOGINA KATTI ONI (ROAD),
HAVERI TALUK,
HAVERI DIST - 581 110.
2. SRI RAJESH R.MALAVADE,
S/O RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT HAVERI TALUK,
HAVERI DIST - 581 110.
3. SRI SHIVABASAPPA
VEERAPPA TONKAD,
S/O VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
-: 2 :-
R/AT P B ROAD (J P ROAD),
HAVERI TALUK,
HAVERI DIST - 581 110.
4. SRI.JAGADISH HALAPPA GUNDAGATTI,
S/O HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
YERESEEMI ONI,
HAVERI TALUK,
HAVERI DIST - 581 110. .. PETITIONERS.
(BY SRI: SRIDHAR N.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
REP., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
HAVERI - 581 110.
-: 3 :-
5. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HAVERI - 581 110.
6. SATHISH,
S/O MARUTHI RAO KUNCHARKAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
7. AMANULLA NANNESAB GOLIBARA,
S/O NANNESAB,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P B ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
8. KUMARA SHIVABASAPPA VARADA,
S/O CHANNABASAPPA VARADA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
9. IMAMHUSSAIAN MIRJASAB JAMADAR,
S/O MIRJASAB JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P B ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
10. ABDULWAHAB ABDULAJIJ MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
-: 4 :-
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P B ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
11. ALLABAKSH FAJALU REHMAN MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
12. RUDRAPPA UJJAPPA BANAKAR,
S/O UJJAPPA BANAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P B ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
13. AURANGA VAHABA ATTARA,
S/O MEHBOOBSAB ATTARA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P B ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
14. HYDARALI BASHASAB BELGAU,
S/O BASHASAB BELGAU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P B ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
15. ABDUL MAJID SAB,
S/O MOULASAB SAARANGI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
-: 5 :-
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
16. SHIVARUDRAPPA,
S/O BHARAMAPPA KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
17. GANGADHARAIAH,
S/O GURUPADAIAH CHOWKIMUTT,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
18. MALLIKARJUNA,
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH CHOWKIMATT,
AGED MAJOR, MERCHANT,
NEAR HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110.
19. ABDULMAJIDKHAN MALLURA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
MERCHANT,
NEAR HAVERI BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI TOWN,
HAVERI - 581 110. ... RESPONDENTS.
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA
FOR R-1, R-2 AND R-4)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
-: 6 :-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 27.06.2012 PASSED
BY THE R-5 CITY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, HAVERI IN
RESOLUTION NO.33 DATED 27.06.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE -
"J" AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.22811/2012:
BETWEEN:
SHIVANANDA,
S/O CHANABASAPPA BALLARY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MERCHANT,
VYBAHAVALAKSHMI PARK,
HANAGAL ROAD,
HAVERI CITY. .. PETITIONER.
(BY SRI.A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADV., FOR
M/S. A.V.G. ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
AND:
1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REGIONAL OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP., BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTISTORY BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. HON`BLE MINISTER FOR (AMENDED
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIDE ORDER
VIDHANA SOUDHA DT.27.07.2012)
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-: 7 :-
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
HAVERI.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS, PORT
AND INLAND WATER
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
HAVERI DIVISION,
HAVERI.
6. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY
ITS COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI.
7. SRI.NEHRU OLEKAR,
AGED 50 YEARS,
HON`BLE MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
HAVERI TOWN.
8. SHIVARAJ S.SAJJAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HON`BLE MEMBER OF
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,
HAVERI TOWN.
9. THE TAHSILDAR,
HAVERI TALUK,
HAVERI.
10. GANGADHRAIAH,
S/O GURUPADAIAHA CHOWKIMUTT,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
-: 8 :-
11. SHIVARUDRAPPA,
S/O BARAMAPPA KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR BUS STAND,
P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
12. ALLABAKSH FAJALOO
RAHAMANSAB MULLA,
(FATHER`S NAME NOT KNOWN),
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
13. RUDRAPPA,
S/O UJJAPPA BANAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
14. ABDUL MAJEED KHAN
A.MALLURA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
15. AURANGSAB,
S/O MEHABOOOBSAB ATHARA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
-: 9 :-
16. HYDER ALI,
S/O BASHA SAB BELGAVA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
17. GURUNATH,
S/O VENKAPPA KALAL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
18. ABDUL MAJEED SAB,
S/O MOULASAB SARANGI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
19. PRAVEEN,
S/O PARAMESHAPPA UPPIN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
20. AMANULLAH,
S/O NANNESAB ELIMATTI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
21. HUSSAIN SAB,
S/O MIRJASAB JAMADARA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
-: 10 :-
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
22. SATISH,
S/O MARUTHI KONCHURAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN.
23. SHIVABASAPPA, (R-23 STRUCK OFF
S/O CHANNABASAPPA VARADA, VIDE ORDER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DT.02.11.2012)
MERCHANT, NEAR
BUS STAND, P.B.ROAD,
HAVERI TOWN. ... RESPONDENTS.
(BY SMT.SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR
M/s. SINGHANIA AND
PARTNERS, ADVs., FOR R-1,
SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA
FOR R-2 TO R-5 & R-9,
SRI.M.V.HIREMATH, ADV.,
FOR R-6 & R-10 TO R-22,
R-8 - SERVED,
R-7 - NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 04.01.2013,
R-23 - STRUCK OFF VIDE
ORDER DATED 02.11.2012)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
-: 11 :-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2012 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, HAVERI PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These two writ petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation said to be by the public spirited citizens and residents of Haveri Town. The subject matter of the litigation is open space abutting N.H.4 (Bangalore Poona Highway) in the heart of Haveri Town bearing CTS No.752 measuring to an extent of 337.79 Sq. Metres. It is stated that the said property is situated in front of KSRTC Main Bus stand, Haveri and it is conveniently located for vehicle parking for general public. The first of the writ petition in W.P.No.22811/2012 is by one Shivananda Channabasappa Ballary, a merchant and resident of Haveri City, wherein he has impugned the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the fourth respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, in handing over land bearing -: 12 :- CTS No.752 measuring 337.79 Sq. Metres to sixth respondent, City Municipal Council, Haveri, for utilising the same for any development activity in the interest of general public without any inconvenience to the public and users of the road, i.e., National Highway passing in front of the said property.
2. Whereas the second petition in W.P.No.5633/2013 is by a group of petitioners seeking writ of certiorari to quash the resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Haveri, fifth respondent in the said writ petition and also for a direction to fifth respondent to maintain the said property for the use and enjoyment of general public of Haveri without putting up any form of construction thereon. The resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012 which is sought to be quashed in the said proceedings is in respect of a decision taken by the Council in its meeting dated 27.06.2012 to grant 6.5 feet x 10 feet open space to 14 persons referred to in the said resolution on a monthly ground rent of Rs.1,500/- and to reserve the -: 13 :- remaining open space for the purpose of parking and other developmental activities for the benefit of general public. The persons in whose favour leasehold right was granted are also arrayed as respondent Nos.6 to 19 in the said petition.
3. These two petitions are taken up for consideration and notice were served on the respondents in both the petitions. On service of such notice, in the first petition, i.e., W.P.No.22811/2012, first respondent - National Highway Authority of India was presented by counsel and filed its Statement of Objections contending that since a bypass to National Highway being constructed recently as in the practice, the Highway passing through the City would be handed over to the State Government for its maintenance and was also made clear that the National Highway Authority has no intention of widening the said road within the City more particularly in a place where CTS No.752 is situated and it was also made clear that the said land CTS No.752 -: 14 :- measuring 337.79 Sq. Metres, does not vest with the first respondent.
4. In the very same petition, sixth respondent, City Municipal Council and also respondent Nos.10 to 23 filed their Statement of Objections to demonstrate that the petition in W.P.No.22811/2012 is not a public interest litigation, but a motivated petition by persons enemically disposed towards respondent Nos.10 to 23, who have secured allotment of plots measuring to an extent of 6.5 feet x 10 feet in CTS No.752 of Haveri Town, pursuant to resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012. It is the specific case of the respondent Nos.6 and 10 to 23 that the petitioner Shivanand Channabasappa Ballary is a person, who is set up by the owners of land bearing Nos.751, 750/B and 750, who having failed in their attempt to dispossess respondent Nos.10 to 23 from CTS No.752 with an intention to usurp the aforesaid vacant space to develop lodging facility thereon.
-: 15 :-
5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there are litigation initiated by owners of CTS Nos.751, 750/B and 750 against respondent Nos.10 to 23 and others in O.S.Nos.13/2007 and 104/2007. The plaintiff in the said original suits having failed to dispossess respondent Nos.10 to 23 from the aforesaid open space and to take possession of the said land, have resorted to set up the petitioners in W.P.No.22811/2012 and W.P.No.5633/2013 challenging the order of fourth respondent in transferring rights of CTS No.752 in favour of sixth respondent, City Municipal Council. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner in W.P.No.22811/2012 is himself involved in a criminal case in S.C.No.5/2002 and the said person does not have good track records to show that he is capable of espousing any public cause. Counsel appearing for petitioner also admits that there is no instance of petitioner Shivanand Channabasappa Ballary filing any public interest litigation earlier to this in espousing any public cause in the interest of general public.
-: 16 :-
6. It is further seen that the very same set of owners of land adjoining CTS No.752 have set up the petitioners in W.P.No.5633/2013 in challenging the resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012 wherein a portion of CTS No.752 is allotted in favour of 14 persons referred to therein to ensure that their earlier petition challenging transfer of land in favour of Municipal Council will be strengthened by this litigation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and respondents. On going through the materials available on record, it is clearly seen that the entire exercise by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is not with an intention to espouse the cause of any public interest. It is in other words to support the personal interest of the persons who are already litigating against the beneficiaries of leasehold rights by filing suits in O.S.Nos.13/2007 and 104/2007 which are pending on the file of Court of Civil Judge, Haveri. Therefore, it is clearly seen that in the guise of public interest, petitioners are trying to strengthen the activities of -: 17 :- the owners of neighbouring plots. Such act of initiating false and frivolous litigation for extraneous reason cannot be encouraged. Further, such act should also not be viewed lightly as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in [(2005) 1 SCC 590], wherein it is observed as under:
"12. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process -: 18 :- either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
8. In the light of the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court, it is clearly seen that the petitioners in both the petitions have not come before this Court with clean hands, they are here to support the illegal act of persons enemically disposed towards the allottees of plots in a portion of CTS No.752. Therefore these two alleged public interest litigation will have to be dismissed by awarding exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- in case of petitioner in W.P.No.22811/2012 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- each on petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.5633/2013, out of which Rs.5,000/- each should be paid to 14 allottees of plots in CTS No.752, balance to be paid to the City Municipal Council, Haveri, for driving them to this -: 19 :- Court to fight these frivolous petitions against the petitioners, who have no manner of right to litigate by filing these petitions.
9. Accordingly the petitions filed by them are dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AGV.