IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.5596-5597 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), 2ND NORTH SUB-DIVISION, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. P.MAHESH SON OF PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43/3, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.
2. G.SRIDHAR SON OF V.GAJAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.134, 3RD MAIN ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER GALI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, SUB-DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, BBMP SWIMMING POOL BUILDING, 9TH CROSS ROAD, HAMPINGAR, BENGALURU-560 104.
5. H. RAMESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT MODERN LAYOUT, 2ND PHASE, BYADARAHALLI, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU -560 091.
6. S. MANOHAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.764, 12TH CROSS ROAD INDIRANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 SRI.KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.3 AND 4 RESPONDENT Nos.5 AND 6 –NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 16/11/2017) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND THE IMPOSITION OF COST TO THE APPELLANT CONTAINED IN THE ORDER DATED 2/8/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION Nos.30044-045/2017 [LB-BMP] AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.30044-45 of 2017, wherein the erring officials were directed to pay the costs, the 5th respondent therein has preferred these appeals.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. That the appellant is innocent of the charges leveled against him.
3. The same is disputed by the respondents.
4. The learned Single Judge on considering the entire material on record took note of the fact that katha entries themselves do not establish title deeds etc. That in the instant case, the officials have ignored the sale deed made in favour of the writ petitioners and the katha entries were changed in favour of the purchasers in title merely based on the complaint of the private respondents 3 and 4, that these respondents 3 and 4 had no legal say at all in the matter in dispute. Therefore, interference at the behest of respondents 3 and 4 was totally uncalled for. In view of the deliberate action of the erring officials based on the interference of respondents 3 and 4, the learned Single Judge was of the view, that a clear message should be sent to the Society that the respondent – authorities should not conduct themselves in a manner they have done so, especially at the behest of frivolous and unconnected complainants, who have no locus standi to intervene in the matter. Therefore, the erring officials were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and further by the impugned order the two erring officials were directed to pay Rs.15,000/- each and the balance amount was ordered to be returned.
5. On considering the reasons assigned, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.30044-45 of 2017. On the other hand, we find that the learned Single Judge was rather lenient enough to return the excess amount. Be that as it may, the order of the learned Single Judge is just and appropriate. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT: bms