Karnataka High Court
The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike vs M/S Brite Advertisers on 12 June, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2019(LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
The Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike
Represented by its Commissioner
N.R.Square, Bengaluru-02. ... Appellant
(By Sri.V. Sreenidhi, Advocate)
AND:
M/s Brite Advertisers
Represented by Sri. R.K.Bhatia
Its Proprietor
Aged about 76 years
S/o Late Rajkumar Bhatia
No.495, Sampige Road
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03. ... Respondent
(By Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, Senior Counsel
along with Smt. G.Sharada Bai, Advocate)
2
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High court Act praying to set aside the order dated: 06.02.2019
passed in WP. No. 41238/2018 by the Hon'ble single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court.
This writ appeal, coming on for orders, this day, CHIEF
JUSTICE, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is admitted. Advocate on record for the respondent takes notice. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the prayer for stay.
2. By the impugned order passed during the pendency of a writ petition, the learned Single Judge has set aside the resolution dated 6th August 2018. The respondent is the writ petitioner and the appellant in this appeal is the respondent in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition which is pending before the learned Single Judge is to the resolution dated 6th August 2018 passed by the appellant Municipal Council, by which, a prohibition was imposed on putting up flexes, banners, buntings, unauthorized boards, wall writings, posters, hoardings, gantries, flex printings and other varieties of advertisements within the jurisdiction of the appellant.
3
3. It is not in dispute that writ petition was not admitted for final hearing. By the impugned order, interim relief was granted setting aside the resolution dated 6th August 2018 which imposed a ban as indicated above. The last line of the impugned order indicates that the writ petition is not disposed of. Thus, prima- facie, it appears to us that the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order. The interim order of setting aside the resolution of the appellant which was impugned in the writ petition could not have been passed as the same virtually amounts to grant of final relief of a drastic nature in the writ petition which in the facts and circumstances of the case could not have been granted. Therefore, a case is made out for grant of stay of operation of that part of the impugned order by which the resolution challenged in writ petition was quashed and set aside. Accordingly, till the disposal of the appeal there will be a stay of that part of the impugned order by which the resolution dated 6th August 2018 is quashed and set aside.
4. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent states that instead of keeping the appeal pending, the 4 same may be allowed by setting aside the relevant part of the order.
5. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, a case is made out for setting aside the relevant part of the impugned order. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal by passing the following order:
(i) That part of the impugned order, by which, the resolution dated 6th August 2018 was quashed and set aside, is hereby set aside;
(ii) We make it clear that the impugned order to that extent is set aside only on the ground that final relief could not have been granted at interim stage;.
(iii) We, however, make it clear that it will be always open for the respondent to apply before the learned Single Judge for grant of appropriate interim relief. If such an application is made, the same is bound to be decided in accordance with law. 5
(iv) We make it clear that we have made no final adjudication on the merit of the controversy in the writ petition and all issues are left open to be decided by the learned Single Judge;
(v) Needless to add that the prayer for interim relief, if any, made by the respondent on the main writ petition shall be decided by the learned Single Judge on its own merits without being influenced by the finding recorded in the impugned order.
Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-