IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.43032/2017 (GM-RES) PIL BETWEEN:
1. ANAND N. TIGER S/O NAGENDRAPPA TIGER AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: SOCIAL WORKER R/O: OPP: SBI BANK, TIGER COMPLEX MAIN ROAD, CHINCHOLI CHINCHOLI TALUK KALABURAGI DISTRICT 2. A.NAGESH S/O K.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: SOCIAL WORKER R/AT W/150, H.M.T. COLONY SECTOR-3, JALAHALLI BENGALURU-560 013 3. KALLAPPA S/O BHEEMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: ARTIST AND SOCIAL WORKER R/AT GANJNOOR, GANJNOOR POST YADAGIRI TALUK YADAGIRI DISTRICT-585 201 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.M.CHANDRARASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA AND CULTURAL 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA BORDER AREA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROOM NO.107 M.S.BUILDING, BEHIND CANTEEN DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA BORDER AREA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROOM NO.107 M.S.BUILDING, BEHIND CANTEEN DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 4. PRAKASH MATTHIHALLI @ MATTHIKATTI S/O NOT KNOWN, SECTION OFFICER KARNATAKA BORDER AREA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROOM NO.107 M.S.BUILDING, BEHIND CANTEEN DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA KALABURAGI-585 102 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585 401 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 010 8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 020 9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-571 511 10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501 11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101 12. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKURU-572 101 13. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 003 14. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT KODAGU-571 201 15. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 16. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001 17. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIJAPURA DISTRICT BIJAPURA-586 101 18. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARI DISTRICT BELLARI-583 101 19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER YADAGIRI DISTRICT YADAGIRI-585 101 20. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHURU DISTRICT, RAICHURU-584 101 21. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT BELAGAVI-590 001 22. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-584 101 23. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR DISTRICT BIDAR-585 401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIVEK HOLLA, HCGP FOR R1 & R5 TO R23;
SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 MORE PARTICULARLY THE R-5 TO 23 NOT TO RELEASE THE FUNDS IN FAVOUR OF THE BENEFICIARIES AS SELECTED IN TERMS OF THE PAPER ADVERTISEMENT DTD.9.5.2017 VIDE ANNEX-C, ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS THE SAID SELECTION IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, 2010 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.12.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R 1. Petitioners have presented this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, inter alia praying for a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 and particularly, respondents No.5 to 23 not to release funds in favour of the beneficiaries selected pursuant to an advertisement dated 9.5.2017 issued by Karnataka Border Area Development Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short).
2. We have heard Shri G.M.Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri Vivek Holla, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 & 5 to 23 and Shri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4.
3. Petitioners’ case is that, the Corporation issued the aforesaid advertisement calling for eligible Societies in the border area to apply for grant of funds to conduct programmes in the border areas mentioned in the advertisement. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the selection made by the Corporation is not on merit, resulting in release of funds in favour of ineligible Societies/Organizations.
4. Shri Vivek Holla, learned HCGP for the respondents No.1 & 5 to 23, contended that the beneficiaries under the scheme are selected based on merit and the allegations leveled by the petitioners are wholly unsubstantiated.
5. Shri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, the contesting respondents, at the outset, raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. Adverting to annexure-R1, filed along with the Statement of Objections, contended that the first respondent is the Secretary of ‘Jyothi Bapule Trust (R)’, Chincholi and the said Trust sought for sanction of funds to conduct cultural activities. The first petitioner, also did file a writ petition in W.P.No.204031/2017 before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court and the said writ petition stood dismissed as withdrawn. He has placed a copy of the Order dated 22.8.2017 in the said writ petition for our perusal.
6. Shri Naganand, further submitted that, the Corporation, in furtherance of it’s avowed objects calls for applications from the eligible organizations to conduct such programmes and projects described in the advertisement. After a strict scrutiny, the authorities select beneficiaries. The first petitioner, being unsuccessful in his attempt to get funds from the authority and having failed in his attempt to seek enforcement of his ostensible right before this Court, has now cleverly come up with this writ petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation by including two other petitioners.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. We are prima facie convinced that, the first petitioner did seek for financial assistance to conduct cultural programmes as per annexure-R1. Shri Naganand, is right in his submission that the first petitioner has been unsuccessful in obtaining any relief in the writ petition filed before the Kalaburagi Bench, referred to supra and come up before this Court again by filing this petition as a Public Interest Litigation.
9. Admittedly, the Corporation is a statutory body. We trust and hope that, it shall endeavour to scrutinize the applications strictly in accordance with the norms and select the most eligible candidates/organizations to pursue it’s cause.
10. In the facts and circumstances, we see no element of Public Interest in this case.
11. Resultantly, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE cp*