1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.31798/2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
K. KUMAR S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS #45/3, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 20 CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHANARAYAN, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRL. SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-02.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP GANDHINAGAR DIVISION BANGALORE-09.
4. R. RAVI S/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YERAS #34, 14TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS K.P. AGRAHARA, MARIYAPPANA PALYA BANGALORE-560 023.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.K. VASANTH, AGA FOR R1 SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R2 & R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT OF LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BBMP AUTHORITY VIDE ORDER No.KA.PA.A(GA)/P.R/102/2017-18 DATED 01-06- 2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-H & ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. S.N. Aswathanarayan, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. A.K. Vasanth, AGA for R1 Mr. S.H. Prashanth, Adv. for R2 & R3 1. The present petition has been filed against the impugned order Annexure-H dated 01.06.2017, by which, the work order for the collection of parking fees in Ward No.120, B.V.K.Iyengar Road, Bangalore, was withdrawn from the present petitioner and given in favour of the 4th Respondent-Mr.R.Ravi.
2. The grievance raised by the present petition is that before the work period of one year under the work order in favour of the petitioner dated 13.10.2016 was over, the impugned order came to be passed on 01.06.2017 vide Annexure-H and therefore, the same is illegal and deserves to be quashed.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents-BBMP has brought to the notice of the Court that in pursuance of the said rectified/amended work order in favour of the 4th respondent-Mr.R.Ravi issued by the BBMP in view of the directions of the SC/ST Commission and the Trial Court’s order, the present petitioner-Mr.K.Kumar has given his “No Objection” dated 27.05.2017 allowing the said work of collection of parking fees to be awarded to the 4th Respondent-Mr.R.Ravi and presently, the 4th Respondent is undertaking the said work and therefore, the present petition has become infructuous.
4. During the course of arguments, it also transpired that the present process of tendering of the said contract for collection of parking fees, there were multiple litigations and several representations and recommendations at political level also, which are as follows:-
(i) O.S.No.587/2016 (Mr.R.Ravi vs. BBMP) for injunction came to be decreed by the trial Court on 30.11.2016 in favour of Mr.R.Ravi, (ii) O.S.No.1554/2016 (Mr.K.Kumar (present petitioner) vs. Mr.R.Ravi) is pending and against the interlocutory order passed by the trial Court, following;
(iii) M.F.A.No.6948/2016 is also pending in this Court.
(iii) The order dated 13.10.2016 Annexure-F in favour of the present petitioner also refers to Reference No.1 – Recommendation of Hon’ble Minister and M.L.A. Sri.Dinesh Gundu Rao dated 21.12.2015 and Reference No.2- the Recommendation of Mr.D.Pramod, Member of BBMP dated 22.12.2015 in favour of the present petitioner.
5. This Court is rather wonderstruck by the spectrum of multiple litigations, political recommendations and award of work orders, withdrawal thereof and re-grant thereof, in favour of the two rival parties, which to say the least, amounts to an abuse of process of law. It not only reflects the mischievous institution of civil suits without impleading all the necessary and proper parties/defendants in such suits, but also failure of public authorities like BBMP to bring it to the notice of the concerned District Judges and the concerned Trial Courts concerned, the fact of such multiple proceedings going on in different Courts in different suits for the same cause, not to mention the off shot litigation taken to the higher Courts like M.F.A. and present writ petition in this Court in the same case.
6. Obviously, both the private parties are to be blamed for playing these tricks in the Court system and sullying the same by such multiple unnecessary proceedings. Therefore, while disposing of this petition, without any directions to the Respondents-BBMP because, fortunately the said litigation has now acquired a quietus by the “No Objection” given by the present petitioner Mr.K.Kumar vide his communication dated 27.05.2017, which after being shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner has been taken on record by this Court, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, against both the private parties, the present petitioner Mr.K.Kumar s/o Kempaiah and Mr.R.Ravi s/o late Mr.Raju to be deposited by them with the Respondents-BBMP within a period of one month from today. If they fail to deposit these costs, the Respondents-BBMP will be entitled to recover the same through coercive process from them in accordance with law.
The learned Trial Court is also directed to dispose of the pending suit in view of aforesaid factual developments.
Srl.
Sd/- JUDGE