Karnataka High Court
M/S Trimurthy Associates vs The Principal Secretary on 12 October, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37420
WP No. 17799 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.17799 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S TRIMURTHY ASSOCIATES
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.286, 17TH CROSS, UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS
SADHASHIVNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI RAMIL P SHAH.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
2. SRI RAMIL P SHAH S/O LATE P H SHAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A 203, 2ND FLOOR, BATAVIA CHAMBERS
KUMARA KRUPA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
3RD CROSS, 3RD GATE
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING
3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 3RD GATE
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37420
WP No. 17799 of 2023
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS
3RD GATE, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP BY ITS ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY.
4. THE MAHATMA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF RURAL ENERGY
AND DEVELOPMENT (AN INITIATIVE UNDER RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
PLOT NO.82, OPP JNLASR
SRIRAMPURA CROSS, JAKKUR
BENGALURU-560 064
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
5. BANGALORE WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD
2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAWAN
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU 560 009
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
6. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE , BENGALURU 560 001
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AAG FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 30.10.2021 BEARING NO. GRA AA PAR RA 439G PA SA 21
ISSUED BY THE R-1 (VIDE ANNX-A) AND DIRECTING THE R-1
TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE SEWARAGE
TREATMENT PLANT IN THE LAND BELONGING TO THE BRUHAT
BENGLAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE SITUATED IN SY.NO.58
DASARAHALLI, KR PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560064 AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37420
WP No. 17799 of 2023
ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 30.10.2021, bearing No.Gra Aa Par Ra 439G Pa Sa 21 issued by the respondent No.1 (vide Annexure "A");
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to pass appropriate order to establish the Sewage Treatment Plant in the land belonging to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike situated in Sy.No.58, Dasarahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru - 560 064;
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the communication dated 02.03.2023 bearing No.NaAaE 15 MNI 2023(E) issued by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure "B") and / or iv. Issue any other appropriate order as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted lease of the "Paramparika Grama" by respondent No.4 - The Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Rural Energy and Development (MGIRED) and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner is in possession of 40514.64 Sq.Mtrs. situated at plot No.82, Opp. JNLASR, Srirampura Cross, Jakkur. This possession is sought to be interfered with by respondent No.5 - -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 Bangalore Water and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) on account of BWSSB intending to establish a Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) in a portion of the aforesaid land measuring approximately 1.5 acres. It is for that reason, it is submitted that Lease Agreement of the petitioner being in force for a period of five years for the aforesaid land, in the event, BWSSB establishes an STP in 1.5 acres, the interest of the petitioner would be adversely affected and as such, the above petition has been filed seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Sri. Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 3.1. the petitioner is required to maintain the "Paramparika Grama", the land now proposed to be used by BWSSB for establishing of the STP is required by the petitioner for the purpose of parking, etc., -5- NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 3.2. A request has been made by the petitioner to the Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department, who in turn had written to the Chairman, BWSSB vide letter dated 02.03.2023 to reconsider the location of the STP and establish the same at a place near a Raja Kaluve, which was already in possession of BBMP.
3.3. This land being required for parking, the Secretary, Urban Development Department being of the opinion that the request of the petitioner was proper, had written the said letter and as such, the intent was to make available the entire land including this 1.5 acres to be made use of by the petitioner for maintaining "Paramparika Grama" in terms of the Lease Agreement dated 31.03.2022. 3.4. Reliance is placed on the schedule to the said Lease Agreement to state that an extent of 40,514.61 Sq.Mtrs. had been leased to the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 petitioner and on that basis it is submitted that the relief sought for in the writ petition requires to be granted.
4. Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that 4.1. Establishing of the STP is in the interest of the general public and this land had been demarcated for establishing of STP in the year 2021 and in furtherance thereof, it is the BWSSB, who is in possession of the said land. 4.2. Tender has been called and work order issued to the successful tenderer, the works are now required to be taken up for BWSSB to cater to the sewerage generated in and around that area. Since the existing 10 MLD STP abutting the property is not sufficient there is a further expansion of the STP required. All the pipelines have been laid to the existing STP and as such is ideally located for such expansion. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 4.3. Tender has been called and work order has already been issued for establishing the STP and as such, any delay would not only cause harm to the BWSSB, but also to the general public.
4.4. The subject land being in possession of the BWSSB and the same not leased to the petitioner is established by the request made by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department and his request to the Chairman BWSSAB. The request which made to the Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Bengaluru, has been rejected by the BWSSB stating that the present land is most ideally situated one for establishing/expansion of STP.
4.5. On the above basis he submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023
5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submits that 5.1. The Lease Agreement which has been executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner is only as regards the "Paramparika Grama"
and not the area which has been demarcated and allotted to BWSSB.
5.2. The Lease Agreement which has been produced by the petitioner at Annexure - H has been interpolated inasmuch as extent measuring 40514.61 Sq.Mtrs has been added/inserted in the schedule which is not contained in the original Lease Agreement, which is available with respondent No.4.
5.3. Original of the said Lease Agreement was also produced before this Court for examination and made available to the counsel for the petitioner for examination. The original of the said Lease Agreement which is available with respondent No.4 does not have the handwritten portion -9- NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 "measuring 40514.61 Sq.Mtrs." As such, she submits that this interpolation would indicate malafides on the part of the petitioner and that a fabricated and forged document has been made use of by the petitioner to be a genuine document to derive benefits by way of orders from this court.
5.4. Respondent No.4 has cancelled/terminated the Lease Agreement in favour of the petitioner by issuing a notice on 31.07.2023. As such, she submits that as of now, petitioner does not have any subsisting rights either in the "Paramparika Grama" or the area reserved for the BWSSB and on this ground, submits that petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Heard Sri. Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. R.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Smt. B.P.Radha,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material on record.
7. The claim of the petitioner is entirely based on the tender, which had been issued for the lease of the said "Paramparika Grama" for a period of five years, in furtherance of which Lease Agreement had been executed in favour of the petitioner on 31.03.2022 for a period of five years. The body of the Lease Agreement does not refer to the extent of the land leased, it only refers to the "Paramparika Grama", it is only in the schedule there is a hand written portion found which reads "measuring 40514.61 Sq.Mt.".
The said handwritten portion, which is an insertion by hand has not been countersigned by the Lessor nor is the seal of the lessor affixed, only the signature of the petitioner along with its seal is found therein.
8. A perusal of the document would also indicate that the document was presented for registration by the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 petitioner stating that respondent No.4 claims exemption from appearance on account of respondent No.4 being a government official. Thus, it prima-facie appears that the document has been registered in the absence of a representation of respondent No.4 - lessor and that the insertion of the area has been made by the petitioner since the original Lease Agreement available with respondent No.4 does not bear any such measurements. The interpolation/addition not being found in the original available with respondent No.4 and only in the document which has been produced by the petitioner, would prima facie establish that the document has been tampered with and made use of by the petitioner before this Court, to obtain favourable orders and lay a claim over a property, which it does not have. It is therefore required that the same is investigated and necessary action taken.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023
9. I am therefore of the considered opinion that necessary complaint would have to be filed by respondent No.4 under Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and Sections Section 417, 419, 420, 468, 471, 193, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as regards such interpolation.
10. The Registrar (General) is also directed to file a complaint under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C before the jurisdictional magistrate against the petitioner and its partners for having made use of a fabricated document before this court.
11. Both complaints can be prosecuted simultaneously as held by this court in Crl Petition No. 5075 of 2020 dated 24.02.2021 in Laksmidevi & Ors Vs State of Karnataka & Ors.
12. Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioner is that the Lease Agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner on 31.03.2022 for an extent of 40514.61
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 Sq.mtrs including the area which had been reserved for the STP in favour of the BWSSB.
13. The land having already been allotted to the BWSSB earlier, the petitioner had written to the Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department, requesting for change in the location, in pursuance of which, the said Prl. Secretary vide his letter dated 02.03.2023 had called upon the BWSSB to reconsider the location. If that be so, then the contention of the petitioner that earlier on 31.03.2022 a Lease Agreement has been executed for the area allotted to BWSSB cannot be sustained.
14. On 02.03.2023, a letter had been written to the Prl.
Secretary, Urban Development Department, to BWSSB for change in the location. This request for change in location has also been rejected by the BWSSB for various reasons as contained in the Communication dated 09.10.2023. Further, learned AGA for respondent No.4 - Lessor has stated that the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023 Lease Agreement has been terminated on 31.07.2023.
15. That being so, the irresistible and only conclusion that can be drawn is the property that has been leased to the petitioner on 31.03.2022 does not include the property that has been reserved for BWSSB in the year 2021.
16. BWSSB having taken steps to implement the STP has already issued work order to the Contractor and the Lease Agreement executed in favour of the petitioner also having been terminated, the vested rights in favour the petitioner to seek for the reliefs in the present petition have ceased.
17. If the petitioner has any claim as regards the said order of termination/cancellation against respondent No.4, the petitioner would always be at liberty to agitate its claim in the appropriate forum.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37420 WP No. 17799 of 2023
18. For all the abovementioned reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there is no ground made out by the petitioner for grant of any of the reliefs prayed for. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
19. Registrar (Judicial) to bring to the notice of the Registrar (General) the directions above.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114