IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1427/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. K MANJUNATH 37 YEARS S/O KEMPAIAH 2. KEMPANNA 65 YEARS S/O MUNISHAMIGOWDA 3. B K CHANDRAPPA 42 YEARS S/O KRISHNA 4. N VIJAYALAKSHMI 38 YEARS W/O MUNIRAJU ALL ARE RESIDING IN BODANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SOMETHANAHALLI POST ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560067 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI N.S. VIJAYANTH BABU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KRISHNAIAH @ PAPANNA S/O RAMAIAH (LATE) AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. K NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O KRISHNAIAH @ PAPANNA BOTH ARE RESIDING IN BODANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SOMETHANAHALLI POST ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560067 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4. MUTHSANDRA GRAM PANCHAYAT MUTHSANDRA HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562114 REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 5. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562114 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.H.PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R-3 & 5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27/03/2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.12734/2019 [LB-RES] PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE BENCH AND ITS SUBSEQUENT EXTENSIONS ON 05/04/2019, 11/04/2019, 16/04/2019 AND ON 24/04/2019 AND ALLOW I.A.NO.2/2019 DATED 05/04/2019 FOR IMPLEADING AS PRAYED THEREIN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred by the present appellants who have taken out application for intervention in the pending writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The first and second respondents in the appeal are the writ petitioners. The challenge is to the ad interim order passed by the learned Single Judge which is dated 27th March 2019. The challenge is also to the subsequent orders of the learned Single Judge by which ad interim order dated 27th March 2019 was extended.
2. The main grievance of the appellants is that though their application for intervention is pending, without dealing with the said application in accordance with law, the learned Single Judge went on extending the ad interim relief.
3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we find that this appeal is directed against a discretionary order of ad interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge. The life of ad-interim order is always limited. Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary.
4. We are sure that the learned Single Judge will deal with the application for intervention filed by the appellants. Only because the application for intervention is pending, it is no ground for interfering with the discretionary ad interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants makes a grievance that the ad-interim order is not being abided. If that is true, the appellants have their own remedies available in accordance with law.
6. Hence, in our view, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order dated 27th March 2019. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the pending writ petition and merits of the intervention application made by the appellants. All contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open.
The pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv