IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.2907 OF 2018(LB-BMP) AND WRIT APPEAL No.2222 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, No. 13, SOUTH PARK, ROAD, NEHRUNAGAR, SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY SRI. S SHIVAKUMAR MANAGING TRUSTEE CUM-PRESIDENT.
…..APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.S. PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) B.B.M.P. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 9TH CROSS ROAD, 2ND MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU–560 011.
3. SHREE SAMSTHANA - GOKARNA SHREE RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH, HOSADURGA, HANIYA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT AND HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT RAMASHRAMA, No.2A, JP ROAD, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 085 REPRESENTED BY THE C.E.O. SRI KG. BHAT.
4. SHREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SHREE RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATI SWAMIJI SHREE SAMSTHANA – GOKARNA SHREE RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH, PRESENTLY CAMPING AT SHRI RAMASHRAMA No.2A, JP ROAD, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 085 REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI. K G BHAT …..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE FOR SRI. P N MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R-3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/09/2018 IN WRIT PETITION 23088/2018 AND 23567/2018 (LB-BMP) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN SO FAR AS DELETING THE APPELLANT FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AND GRANTING LIBERTY TO THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 TO GO AHEAD WITH CONSTRUCTION.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These appeals are filed being aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.23088 of 2018 and 23567 of 2018 insofar as it relates to the order passed on the memo filed by the writ petitioners dated 1.6.2018.
2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein filed the instant writ petitions seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by the first respondent viz. the Commissioner-BBMP. In the said Writ Petitions Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were arrayed as Sri.M.Pavan Prasad and Committee on Judicial Accountability respectively. During the pendency of proceedings, a memo was filed by the petitioners’ counsel seeking to delete respondent Nos.3 and 4. By the impugned order, memo was allowed and respondents 3 and 4 were deleted from the array of respondents. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 has filed these appeals.
3. Sri.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even though the appellant may not be a necessary party, he is a proper party for adjudication of the proceedings. That it is only at his behest that the proceedings have taken place. That a public interest litigation was filed by the appellant wherein by the order dated 9.8.17 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.38562 of 2016 and connected matters, various directions were issued including a liberty to the appellant to make a written submission together with documentary proof before the respondent-authorities. Therefore, the proceedings having been initiated by the appellant, he is a proper party for the adjudication of the writ petitions.
4. The same is disputed by Sri.Ganapathi Hegde, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.3. It is submitted that there are various findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench which disentitles the appellant to continue as respondent before the learned Single Judge. That the dispute is between the writ petitioners and the Authority. That the appellant has no role to play. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Hence, it is pleaded that the learned Single Judge having rightly accepted the memo, no interference is called for.
5. Heard learned counsels.
6. The learned Single Judge while accepting the memo to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4, came to the view that even though the complainants have initiated proceedings against the petitioners, the complainants have no right to defend the order passed by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. That the office is a self sufficient public authority and has the legal framework to defend its actions and orders. That the complainants are neither necessary nor proper party in these petitions. That there is no public interest involved as claimed.
7. Having regard to the contentions urged by the learned counsels, we differ with the findings of the learned Single Judge.
8. Primarily, it could be seen even from the order impugned before the learned Single Judge that the matter involves a civil amenity site. The Commissioner, in paragraph 13 of the impugned order which had been challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions, has held as follows :-
“Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the property in question genuinely reserved for civic amenities and the mutt purchased the same fully knowing that, it is a civic amenity site. Further it is also crystal clear that the khatha of the said property is not rightfully transferred in the name of the mutt. It appears that, NOC was issued by the office by mis- guiding the BDA, Commissioner. The NOC should have been issued by the BDA authority and not by the BDA Commissioner alone. The objection statement and affidavit of the BDA Commissioner, filed in Writ Petition No. 38562 of 2016 is also in-correct and it will not helpful to the mutt and cannot be relied upon.”
Therefore, it is not right to state that there is no public interest litigation involved at all. In fact, the question that was decided by the Commissioner in the impugned order is with regard to the civil amenity sites said to have been purchased by the writ petitioners. Under these circumstances, when there is a public interest involved, the contention of the caveator respondent No.3 that it is only a dispute between them and the Authority and therefore, the appellant is not a proper and necessary party may not be correct.
9. Even otherwise, so far as the contentions of respondent No.3 that they have a very good case on merits and that the dispute is only between them and the Authority, is necessarily one of the matters that have to be decided by the learned Single Judge. For the disposal of these appeals, it is suffice to hold that as public interest is involved, the appellant would be necessarily a proper party for the disposal of the petitions. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge in accepting the memo and deleting respondents 3 and 4 from the array of respondents is required to be interfered with.
For the aforesaid reasons, writ appeals are allowed. The order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.23088 of 2018 and 23567 of 2018 to the extent of allowing the memo and ordering deletion of respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the array of respondents is set aside. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall continue as such. The memo is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rs