Karnataka High Court
Shri. Sidagouda Modagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB
WP No. 21294 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 21294 OF 2022 (APMC-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SIDAGOUDA MODAGI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTRE AND
STATE PRESIDENT BKS,
R/O 1B, 4059/4D, 2ND FLOOR,
PATEIL BUILDING,
OPP TO SADAR HIGHSCHOOL GROUND,
TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI - 590 001.
AADHAR No.9761 5439 4670
PAN No.ASIPM6796M
PHONE No.8971102772
EMAIL: NIL
Digitally signed
by SHARADA
VANI B 2. SHRI. SANJEEV NINGAPPA DONGARGAVI,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O 1001, GOKUL NAGAR, K.K. KOPPA,
TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI - 591 109.
AADHAR No.9689 2151 8170
PAN No.DFAPD4287J
PHONE No.9741646098
EMAIL: NIL
3. SHRI. SHEKHAR GURAPPA AKKANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O K.K. KOPPA, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI - 591 109
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB
WP No. 21294 of 2022
AADHAR No.7779 5619 9802
PAN No.DMZPA010SE
PHONE No.7795544975
EMAIL: NIL
4. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN BALAPPA DONGARAGANVI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O 417, BADASTAR GALLI, K.K. KOPPA,
TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI - 591 109.
AADHAR No.9904 7099 9873
PAN No.BKPPD4138N
PHONE No.9980385350
EMAIL: NIL
5. SHRI. ARVIND MURAGYAPPA HEREKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O # 57 YEARS, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BELGUNDI,
TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI - 591 108.
AADHAR No.9094 0739 1395
PAN No. NIL
PHONE No.9972256069
EMAIL: NIL
6. SHRI. KALLAPPA REVANI GUNDANI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O 82/3, LASXMI GALLI,
MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI - 590 016.
AADHAR No.4202 1026 2523
PAN No. NIL
PHONE No.8277540644
EMAIL: NIL
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BOLABANDI NITIN RAMALU.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB
WP No. 21294 of 2022
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI 590 001.
3. THE BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
45, ASHOK NAGAR,
SHIVAJI NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590 016.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE BELAGAVI CITY CORPOATION,
CTS NO. 4821/27A, R S NO.1005,
NEAR SP OFFICE, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
5. THE DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL MARKET PRODUCE COMMITTEE,
THE DIRECTOR,
APMC YARD, BELAGAVI 590 009.
6. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET PRODUCE COMMITTEE,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
APMC YARD, BELAGAVI 590 009.
7. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING,
NO.11, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALROE 560 001.
8. JAI KISAN WHOLESALE VEGETABLE,
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
R.S NO. 697/2, NH-4 ROAD,
BELAGAVI 590 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1, 2 & 7;
SRI. GOPALKRISHNA KURANDWAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R6)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB
WP No. 21294 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED LICENSE BEARING NO.DAM/RGN/PMY/01/2021.22
FOR MARKETING OF NOTIFIED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
VEGETABLE AND COMMENCEMENT OF VEGETABLE WHOLE
SALE BUSINESS IN SY.NO.677, 678, 686/1, 686/2, 696/1,
697/2, 698/1 AND 698/2 ISSUED BY R7 DATED 16.11.2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-Z AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be public spirited citizens have presented this petition in PIL jurisdiction of the Court for laying a challenge to a slew of orders at Annexures - W, W1 to W13 whereby, an ex post facto building licence has been accorded by the 4th respondent - City Corporation. They have also sought for a writ of mandamus to the said respondent to demolish the subject structures, as being illegal & unauthorised.
2. Having heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB WP No. 21294 of 2022
(i) After construction of the structures in question, the 8th respondent - Association along with another had filed W.P No.107478/2017 c/w W.P Nos.107636-42/2017 (LB-UC) and a learned Single Judge of Dharwad Bench of this Court handed a judgement dated 26.07.2017 directing the respondent - City Corporation to consider their application "for issuance of licence for construction of building within one month ... till that point of time, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed not to act upon the earlier notices issued by it". In terms of the said direction, the impugned licences have been issued way back in February & March 2020. This petition is filed on 20.10.2022 with no plausible explanation for the delay brooked. It hardly needs to be stated that those who want to espouse the so called public cause, should do it without brooking any delay.
(ii) Earlier, one Mr.Mohammed Rafique Khanapuri had filed W.P No.17562/2017 (GM-RES-PIL) to which the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB WP No. 21294 of 2022 very same City Corporation and the very same Association were respondents. In the said petition, challenge inter alia was to the construction of the structures in question in terms of provisional approval granted to the layout plan for the establishment of Vegetable Market. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.07.2020 dismissed the petition as having become infructuous with the following observations at para 3 of the order:
"In light of memo dated 20.07.2020 filed by petitioner, said memo is placed on record and in view of the fact that learned Advocate appearing for respondents have also admitted that order dated 26.07.2017 passed Dharwad Bench of this Court, pursuant to which, permission for constructing the building having been granted, prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous and it does not survive for consideration."
These observations dispel petitioners' contention that the subject Building Licences have been granted after the structures were constructed. The said order -7- NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB WP No. 21294 of 2022 obviously has not reserved any liberty to anyone for laying a challenge to the subject Building Licences.
(iii) Thereafter, another batch of 15 persons had filed W.P No.11320/2020 (LB-RES-PIL) calling in question the very same Building Licences, copies whereof were produced at Annexures-Y, Y1 to Y14 which correspond to Annexures-W, W1 to W14 in the petition at hands. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court declined interference in the matter vide order dated 01.03.2021, of course on the ground that the said petitioners were not 'pro bono litigants'. The Court observed "... However, we make it clear that the issues raised in the petition are remain open." (sic) . Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners heavily stressed this observation for maintaining the present petition. However, much milk cannot be drawn from this stray observation. Had the petitioners presented this petition soon after earlier -8- NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB WP No. 21294 of 2022 orders were made, arguably the issue of delay & laches would have paled into insignificance.
(iv) The vehement submission of Mr.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the petitioner in W.P No.17562/2017 had played fraud in seeking disposal of the case as having become infructuous and therefore, the present petition should be entertained in PIL jurisdiction is difficult to countenance, the said petitioners having not been arrayed as a respondents here. No cogent pleadings are taken coupled with evidentially material has been taken up for examining the pleaded case of perpetration of fraud. There is an interim order passed in the said writ petition on 06.03.2020 wherein some observation has been made about the construction with oral permission and that the same impermissible. However, they cannot be much pressed into service, the writ petition itself having been dismissed on the ground that it had become -9- NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB WP No. 21294 of 2022 infructuous. It hardly needs to be stated that what is observed in the interlocutory stage withers away with the final order in the petition.
(v) There was yet another case in W.P No.3085/2020. It was filed by a batch of 15 other persons for laying a challenge to the order dated 16.05.2016 passed by the respondent - Urban Development Authority i.e. the 3rd respondent herein whereby, conversion of the subject land to non-agricultural purpose was accorded. The respondent - Association herein was also arrayed as Respondent No.8. The Co-ordinate Bench negatived even that petition on the ground of delay.
(vi) On the basis of the material on record, what we observe is that case after case has been filed against the respondent - Association of merchants. Many of those who had filed these cases were also merchants. Some of them claim to be agriculturists. It is not that all they are naïve to the worldly affairs and therefore,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB WP No. 21294 of 2022 the present petition is filed with delay. None of the petitioners has declared his educational background & financial status. They have also not declared the extent of their land holding. In the cause title, they have only said 'Occ: Agriculture'. Forgery & fraud are alleged against the respondent - Association with no material particulars. No such allegation is made against the petitioners in the earlier rounds of litigation. It is the specific case of the petitioners in para 23 of the petition '... the Respondent no.8 after putting substantial construction applied for permission for construction ... the Respondent no.4 on 11.02.2020 ... has illegally given fresh permission to construct building which is already constructed to a substantial extent... '. However, what was the extent of construction when the permission was applied for, has not been specified nor any document like photograph has been produced. No explanation is offered for not vouching the averment.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1131-DB WP No. 21294 of 2022
(vii) Lastly, the impugned orders can be challenged by way of appeal under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. No explanation is offered for not availing the said remedy. Even now it is open to the petitioners to avail that remedy, if they are so willing.
In the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.
Registry to send a copy of this order to Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 8 by Speed Post immediately.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8