IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. WRIT APPEAL NOS. 4855-4856 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN 1. MR. IQBAL AHMED SIDDIQUI S/O MR. SHAIK DAWOOD SIDDIQUI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. MRS. NAJMA SIDDIQUI W/O MR. IQBAL AHMED SIDDIQUI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3.MR. SHAIK SALMAN SIDDIQUI S/O MR. IQBAL AHMED SIDDIQUI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/O NO.1 NANDIDURGA EXTENSION 7TH ROAD, JAYAMAHAL BENGALURU-560001 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2.THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 3.THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (EAST DIVISION) BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 4.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, VASANTHA NAGARA SUB- DIVISION SHIVAJI CIRCLE MEENAKSHI TEMPLE STREET SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 052 5.MR. T. VENKAT VARDHAN S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 18/2, 3RD CROSS NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046 6.MS. SATYA ACHAYYA D/O LATE K. C. ACHAYYA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS MEMBER: CITIZENS ACTION FORUM NO. 19, 6TH ROAD NANDIDURG ROAD EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 046 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI V SREENIDHI, AGA FOR R-1) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.50091- 50092/2015 DATED 30.3.2016.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appeals are barred by limitation.
2. However, as prayed for by Mr.A.C.Balaraj, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, we have considered the writ appeals on merits.
3. The writ petitioners lodged a complaint with the municipal authorities against the private respondents, who are the appellants before us, alleging that the private respondents are making certain unauthorised construction.
4. A notice under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1976, was issued. The private respondents were aggrieved and, therefore, preferred an appeal on the file of the Appellate Tribunal.
5. When the writ petitions were considered by the Hon’ble Single Judge, His Lordship thought that justice would be subserved by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to seek for their addition in the said appeal.
6. Mr.Balaraj submits that the complainants are not necessary parties in the appeal.
7. We are unable to accept his contention as the notice emerged out of the complaint filed by the complainants. At least, they are proper parties to the proceeding.
8. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ appeals.
9. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed.
10. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals, I.A.No.II of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
11. We make no order as to costs..
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv