IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.10652/2019 (LB BMP) BETWEEN SRI R SHIVANNA SON OF LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.38/12, 2ND MAIN, OPPOSITE AISHWARYA APARTMENT, SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE NORTH BENGALURU-560 010 (BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B G, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE ... PETITIONER MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHALAKSHMIPURAM SUB-DIVISION, WARD NO.43, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096.
4. SRI ANANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SON OF T R RANGASWAMAIAH NO.4/B, 2ND MAIN ROAD, PARIMALA NAGARA, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANANDEESWAR D.R, HCGP FOR R1, SRI H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2019, WHEREIN REJECTED THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO IMPLEAD HIM AS R-3 IN APPEAL NO.1257/2017 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-J AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri.H.Devendrappa, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Learned HCGP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1257/2017 dated 18.01.2019 whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to reject the interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.3 preferred by the petitioner herein praying that he may be permitted to come on record as party respondent in the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 herein.
3. The sole ground on which the application is preferred is that action against respondent No.4 was initiated at the instance of the petitioner and that he is the owner of the neighbouring property which is adjacent to the property of respondent No.4 and that respondent No.4 in utter violation of the Building Bye Laws and without obtaining sanction plan is putting up the construction.
4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation of Greater reported in (1997) 2 SCC 524 was pleased to hold that the mere fact that the petitioner herein is the neighbour of the respondent No.4 herein would not entitle him to come on record and is not a necessary party.
5. It is seen that the action against respondent No.4 has been initiated at the instance of the petitioner. It is not his case that the action of the official respondents lacks bonafide or that the respondents are colluding with respondent No.4/appellant. At the instance of the petitioner, the action having been initiated and the aggrieved having approached the Appellate Tribunal, it is apparent that the respondents have not taken a back seat nor have they remained idle. Further, the confirmation order is passed by the respondent-BBMP only. The petitioner does not possess any locus standi to agitate the matter. In that event, if the petitioner wishes, he may provide such material to the BBMP and assist the BBMP in his endeavour to establish the Rule of law. Hence, this Court finds no error nor any ground is made out warranting interference with the order passed by the Tribunal.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR