IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO.6465/2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
C.N. DHARANISH, S/O SRI C S NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT #70/4, C-1, 2ND MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY, 4TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, BANALORE-560078.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI : C N DHARANISH – PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND 1. SRI. P.O. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE P B OMKARAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT #70/6, 2ND MAIN, 4TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, DOLLARS COLONY, BANGALORE-560 078 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J P NAGAR SUB DIVISION, 10TH CROSS, 21ST MIAN, 2ND PHASE, J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078.
3. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 008.
... RESPONDENTS (BY DR.R.RAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR BBMP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITN OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY AT BENGALURU ON THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER I.E., I.A.NO.3 AT ANNEX-A IN APPEAL NO.271/2016.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMIANRY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Dr.R.Ramachandran, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for BBMP.
2. The petitioner has appeared before this Court in person.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 6.1.2017, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC and refused to implead him as party respondent in an appeal filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be a resident of Maharaja Enclave, 57-320-70/4 situate at 2nd Main, Dollars Colony, J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Bangalore. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had started construction of the eighth unit in a building known as ‘Maharaja Enclave’. Since he is one of the residents of the said building, since his unit was being damaged by the construction being raised, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 – the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP. He had requested that the illegal construction of the eighth unit should be stopped. According to the petitioner, while the seven units were approved by the BBMP, there is no approval whatsoever for the raising of the eighth unit. Thus, the construction of the said unit is patently illegal.
5. Subsequently, the BBMP had issued a notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 to respondent No.1. Since the respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the said notice, he had filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had filed an application for being impleaded as respondent No.3. However, by order dated 6.1.2017, the learned Tribunal has rejected the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
6. Mr.Dharanish C.N, petitioner-in-person, submits that he has been fighting a battle against respondent No.1 with regard to the illegal construction being raised by respondent No.1 for a number of years. Despite the fact that he has repeatedly brought the illegal construction to the notice of the BBMP, the BBMP has sat silently over the entire issue. According to him, since respondent No.1 has political influence, he has been able to win over the officers of the BBMP. Thus, it is imperative that the petitioner be permitted to be impleaded as party respondent, so that he can bring the true facts of the case to the notice of the learned Tribunal. Secondly, that even in his appeal, the respondent No.1 has clearly stated, in para 8 that the notice issued under Section 308 of the Act has been issued at the instigation of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded. Thirdly, that due to the illegal omission of the respondent No.1, due to the illegal omission of respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is the petitioner who is suffering due to the illegal construction being raised by respondent No.1. Therefore, also, he is a necessary party to the appeal filed by respondent No.1.
7. Heard the petitioner-in-person and perused the impugned order.
8. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has filed an appeal under Section 443-A of the Act challenging a notice issued under Section 308 of the Act by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Thus, the dispute is restricted only between respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 inter se.
9. Even if the respondent No.1 claims in his appeal that the said notice has been issued at the instance of the petitioner, even then he has not sought any relief against the petitioner. The only relief sought for by the respondent No.1 is against respondent No.2, namely that the notice issued under Section 308 of the Act should be set aside by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to the lis.
10. As far as bringing correct facts to the notice of the Tribunal are concerned, since the action of BBMP in issuing the notice under Section 308 of the Act is in question, obviously it is for the BBMP, respondent Nos.2 and 3 to defend the notice to the best of their abilities. Therefore, it is misconception that the BBMP would fail in discharging its duties, and in defending its interest before the learned Tribunal.
11. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the alleged illegal construction, or by any inaction allegedly committed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, he has ample legal remedies available to him against respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. However, merely because he may be suffering due to the lapses allegedly committed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, he cannot be permitted to be impleaded as party respondent in a dispute, which is limited only between respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the learned Tribunal.
12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. Hence, it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-