Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shantesh Gureddi vs The Commissioner on 14 March, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
PRESENT R
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT APPEAL NOs. 621-622 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) AND
WRIT APPEAL NOs.802-804 OF 2016 (LB-BMP),
WRIT APPEAL NO.789 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) AND
WRIT APPEAL NOs.812-815 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)
IN W.A. NOs.621-622 OF 2016 AND 802-804 OF 2016:
BETWEEN
1. SRI.SHANTESH GUREDDI
S/O. SRI. S. M. GUREDDI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O NO. 58, (SRT ROAD)
CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE 560052
2. SMT. JYOTHI GUREDDI
W/O. SRI. SHANTESH GUREDDI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O NO. 58, (SRT ROAD)
CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE 560052
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI DESHRAJ, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
CORPORATION BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560002
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE,
VASANTHNAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
MEENAKSHI KOHIL STREET,
BANGALORE
3. CITIZENS FORUM FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT
NO. 11A/38,
CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE 560052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
MR. JAGDISH K. BIHANI
4. MR. JAGDISH K. BIHANI
S/O. SRI. H.P. BIHANI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO. 11A/38, CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE 560052.
5. MR. BHARAT M. MEHTA
S/O. LATE. SRI. M.S. MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO. 59 , CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE 560052.
6. MR. MANDEEP SINGH CHANDOK
S/O. SRI. KESAR SINGH CHANDOK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO. 52/53, CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE 560052.
3
7. MR. ASHWIN SHAH
S/O. LATE. SRI. JAYANTHILAL H SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD
BANGALORE 560052.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.SREENIDHI, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-7)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOs. 31080/2015 &
31202-205/2015 DATED 16/3/2016.
IN W.A. NO.789 OF 2016 AND 812-815 OF 2016
BETWEEN
M/S ROERICH HOTELS PVT LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
R/O NO.122/A, KHB COLONY, 5TH BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANANTH MANDAI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SREENIVASA PATAVARDHAN K R, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE , CORPORATION BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560002
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BURHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
4
VASANTHNAGAR SUB DIVISION
MEENAKSHI KOHIL STREET,
BANGALORE.
3. CITIZENS FORUM FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT
NO.11A/38, CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
MR JAGDISH K BIHANI
4. MR JAGDISH K BIHANI
S/O SRI H P BIHANI ,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO.11A/38, CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052
5. MR BHARATH M MEHTA
S/O LATE SRI M S MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O NO.59, CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD
BANGALORE-560052
6. MR MANDEEP SIGH CHANDOK
S/O SRI KESAR SINGH CHANDOK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O NO.52/53, CUNNINGHAM CROSS, ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052
7. MR ASHWIN SHAH
S/O LATE SRI JAYANTHILALA H SHAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF CUNNINGHAM CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.SREENIDHI, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI K.N.PHANINDRA,ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-7)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
5
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.31078/2015 &
31207-31210/2015 DATED 16/03/2016.
ALL THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, by the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, they are taken up together for hearing.
2. These appeals are filed against a common order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by the applicants for addition of parties before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, for brevity) and directing their addition in the appeals before the Tribunal.
3. The litigation has a chequered history. Adjacent owners residing in Cunningham Cross Road, Bengaluru, are fighting to establish their respective rights concerning a 6 construction put up in premises bearing No.40, Cunningham Cross Road.
4. It is an admitted position that the residents of Cunningham Cross Road have formed a Forum known as 'Citizens Forum for Safe Environment,' (hereinafter referred to as the Forum, for short) of which they are the members.
5. The owner of the premises bearing No.40, Cunningham Cross Road, allegedly made a construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan.
6. The Forum and some of its members filed a complaint before the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
7. Our understanding of the Forum is that it is nothing but an assured name by a group of persons, who have assembled themselves under one umbrella.
8. However, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, asking the person responsible for the violation, to answer. Ultimately, on 7 September 17, 2014, an order of demolition of the unauthorized structure was passed.
9. The person responsible for the alleged unauthorized construction preferred an appeal and obtained an order of status quo.
10. An application is filed by the Forum and some of its members seeking for their additions as parties in the appeal. The Tribunal rejected their application, but the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the application.
11. Mr.D.L.N.Rao and Mr.Ananth Mandagi, learned senior advocates appearing for the appellants, strenuously argues that the application filed by the Forum was not maintainable as it is not a body corporate. It is submitted that an unregistered body cannot maintain a writ petition.
12. Secondly, it is submitted, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDANMAL -versus- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND OTHERS 8 reported in (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 524 that complainants are not necessary and proper parties in such a proceeding.
13. Mr.D.L.N.Rao has cited a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA AND ANOTHER -versus- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DELHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1990 DELHI 170 to contend that the Tribunal has no power to add anyone except the Corporation.
14. We first deal with the judgment in Hardayal Singh Mehta (supra). In the said case, the Delhi High Court was dealing with the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporations Act, and held that the Tribunal had no power to add anyone except the Corporation.
15. In the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979, Regulation 40 (a) expressly provides for the power of the Tribunal to add any party at any stage of the proceeding. Thus, the judgment in the case of Hardayal Singh Mehta has no application to the facts of this case. 9
16. Now, let us deal with the decision in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra). In a suit, the issue was whether the complainant was a 'necessary or a proper party' to be joined as the defendant. The Supreme Court of India recorded that a party could not be added, unless it has been proved that his presence was necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute.
17. The judgment in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal is also distinguishable, as the complainants who sought to add them as parties did not raise any objection as to the two chattels on the terrace stated to have been erected by the owner of the property. It was established on facts that the chattels were movable and meant for storing implements of the mechanics.
18. We are of the opinion that the power to add a party to a proceeding is not of initial jurisdiction, but of a discretionary nature.
10
19. We feel that some of the residents of the locality have pointed out that another resident of the same locality has constructed a building in deviation of the sanctioned building plan. The municipal authorities have passed an order of demolition. Against it, an appeal was filed by the residents and there is an order of status quo.
20. There is no attempt on the part of the authorities of the Mahanagara Palike to get that order vacated and get the alleged unauthorized construction demolished.
21. Under the apprehension that the matter may not be pursued before the Tribunal properly, some of the complainants have come forward seeking for their addition as parties.
22. The Hon'ble Single Judge, in exercise of his sound discretion, felt that they are proper parties. We, also, feel that no prejudice will be caused to the appellants if those persons are added as parties before the Tribunal. On the contrary, better justice is always done if a lis is decided upon a contested hearing.
11
23. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Hon'ble Single Judge in directing addition of parties.
24. All the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
25. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*