Karnataka High Court
Shankaragouda M Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 27 T H DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NOS.104142-104161/2017 ( LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANKARAGOUDA M PATIL
AGE:68 Y EARS, OCC:RETD.
R/O:PLOT NO. L- 22
SECTOR NO . 58, NAVANAGAR
BAGALKOT-587103
2. SMT.BHARATI LAXMAN KUDAGI,
AGE: 40 YEARS , OCC: SOCIAL S ERVICE,
R/O: SECTOR NO.36, NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOTE-587103.
3. BASAVARAJ GIRIMALLAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 40 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: H.NO.381/A ,
NEAR NAGARESH WAR TEMPLE,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
4. SMT.GEETA RAGHAVENDRA PA TTEPUR
AGE: 44 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O: VINAYAK NA GAR,
WARD NO.21, BAGALKOTE-587101.
5. MAHANTESH MUPPAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 47 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: PLO T NO.D-162, SECTOR NO.47,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103.
2
6. SRI.SADANAND BHUVANESHWAR NA RA,
AGE: 47 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: #388/1 WARD NO.3, HALAPETH,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
7. SMT.S WETABAI VISHWANATH KOLAR
AGE: 46 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: #250, MARWADI GALLI,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
8. SHRI BASAVARAJ MALLAPPA MANTU R
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: 22 N D CROSS, VIDYAGIRI,
BAGALKOTE-587102.
9. SHRI MAHESH SHARANAPPA KAMATAGI
AGE: 59 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: WARD NO.13,
OLD BAGALKOTE- 587101.
10. SMT.KAVITA W/O PRAKASH DAYAPULE
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: #378, SECTO R NO.5,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103.
11. SHRI BASAVARAJ SHIDDAPPA KATA GERI
AGE: 46 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SECTOR NO.30, NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOTE-587103.
12. SMT.UMA VIJAY CHATTARAKI
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: PRIVA TE SERVICE,
R/O: #182, SECTO R NO.30, NA VANAGAR,
BAGALKOTE-587103.
13. SHRI DYAVAPPA PADMANNA RAYAKUMPI
AGE: 55 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: H.NO.8A, KA VEERAMATH GALLI,
COLLEGE ROAD, BAGALKOTE-587101.
14. SHRI RAJENDRA PANCHAYYA BALULAMATH
AGE: 53 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O. NO.281/1/2, MARWADI GALLI,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
3
15. SMT.AMRU TA BASAVARAJ CHALAGERI
AGE: 32 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RAJEEV GANDHI ASHRAYA COLONY,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103.
16. SMT.MOKSHAA SANTOSH MELNAD
AGE: 41 YEARS , OCC: PRIVA TE SERVICE,
R/O: 15 T H CROSS, VIDYAGIRI,
BAGALKOTE-587102.
17. SHRI ABDUL SA TA R MANIYAR
AGE: 60 YEARS , OCC: PRIVA TE SERVICE,
R/O. C-41, S ECTO R NO.2, NAVANAG AR,
BAGALKOTE-587103.
18. SHRI M.Y . EMMI
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: HALAPETH, OLD CITY ,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
19. SHRI YALLAPPA MALLAPPA BEND IGERI
AGE: 61 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
SECTOR NO .61, NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOTE-587103.
20. BASAVARAJ VEERABHADRAPPA NASHI
AGE: 35 YEARS , OCC: PRIVA TE SERVICE,
R/O: BUDDAR GALLI, S TA TION ROAD,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S B HEBBALLI, ADVOCA TE.)
AND:
1. THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (KBJNL) ,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-1.
4
2. BAGALKOT TO WN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY , BAGALKO T,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER.
3. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
BAGALKOTE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. SHRI S .RUDRESH
AGE: 52 YEARS , OCC: COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAGALKOTE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.KUMAR, ADDL. GOVERNM ENT ADVOCA TE,
FOR R.1;
SRI ANAND R KOLLI, ADVOCA TE, FO R R.2;
R.3 AND R.4 - NO TICE DISPENS ED WITH.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONS TITU TION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLU TIO N
DATED 14.01.2016 PASSED AT SUBJECT NO 05 IN ITS
123 R D BOARD MEETING OF RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 5,
A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER
ANNEXURE-C AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
GOVRNMENT ORDER DATED 24.01.2017 PASSED IN
NO.JASAME 222 KBN 2016 (KA.1) PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED
HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-D, ETC.,.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned Addl. Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent No.1. The learned 5 counsel Sri Anand Kolli, takes notice for the respondent No.2. The notice to be issued to the respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed with.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
3. The petitioners claiming themselves to be the members of the City Municipal Council (CMC), Bagalakote, approached this Court seeking the following remedies.
(a) A wr it in the nature of Certiorar i quashing the impugned resolution dated 14.1.2016 passed at subject No.05 in its 123 r d Board Meeting of Respondent No.2 and 5, a copy of which is produced herein as per Annexure-C;
(b) A wr it in the nature of cer tior ari quashing the impugned Government order d ated 24.1.2017 passed in No.JaS amE 222 KBN 2016 (Ka.1) passed by Respondent No.1, a copy 6 of which is produced herein as per Annexure-D;
(c) Any other appropriate wr it, order or direction as deemed f it and proper be gr anted.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 i.e., Bagalakote Town Development Authority is the authority established to develop Navanagar, Bagalakote, which is named in short as BTDA to rehabilitate the project displaced persons due to Upper Krishna Project. It is alleged that, Unit No.1 of Navanagar, though does not come within the limits of CMC, Bagalakote, the respondent No.2 knowing fully well, passed a resolution which is against to its earlier resolution, proposing to transfer Unit No.1 of Navanagar to CMC, Bagalakote, for further development and maintenance. In fact this move was opposed by 7 the CMC, Bagalakote, on the ground that it has no infrastructure for the purpose of further development of the Unit No.1. In spite of that, the respondent No.2 passed a resolution in its No.123 r d board meeting taking a decision to transfer the unit No.1 of Navanagar to CMC, Bagalakote. The said resolution was forwarded to the Government for the purpose of seeking approval of the Government. After receiving the said resolution, the Government, as per Annexure- D, vide Government order dated 24.1.2017 has passed the order permitting the 2 n d respondent to transfer Navanagar unit No.1 to CMC, Bagalakote, with other conditions. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Government, the petitioners have approached this Court.
5. It is evident from cause title of the petitions that, the petitioners have made the City Municipal Council, Bagalakote, as third 8 respondent. It is really the 3 r d respondent who is the aggrieved party by the Government order as per Annexure-D and the resolution passed by the 2 n d respondent as per Annexure-C. The said 3 r d respondent has not made any objection before this Court. The petitioners are the part and parcel of that City Municipal Council, Bagalakote, they cannot take any individual right to question the activities of the 2nd respondent when real aggrieved party is respondent No.3.
6. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3 r d respondent City Municipal Council has also passed a resolution as per Annexure-E, taking a decision that the City Municipal Council, Bagalakote, have no infrastructure for the purpose of further development and maintenance of Navanagar Unit No.1 and that the 2 n d respondent has to develop the said unit No.1 of Navanagar. But it appears 9 this resolution has not been forwarded to the Government with a request to the Government to consider their resolution as if a representation for the purpose of Government to take appropriate action in this regard. Instead of doing that, the petitioners, who have no locus-standi to question the order of the Government before this Court individually or collectively when the 3rd respondent a statutory body is the real aggrieved party, which has to approach the Government.
7. Under the above said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitions have to be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners or to the 3 r d respondent, on the basis of the resolution passed by the 3 r d respondent, as per Annexure-E, to approach the Government by making proper representation for modification of the order passed by the Government as per Annexure-D. 10
8. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-