IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.27247 OF 2016 (GM-ST/RN-PIL) BETWEEN:
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC amended as per Court ACCOUNTABILITY (REGD.) Order dated 01.08.2019 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.13, 4TH FLOOR, 2ND CROSS SOUTH PARK ROAD, NEHRUNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 020 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT GANESH S. KOUNDINYA S/O. LATE MOOLANATHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., FOR SMT.SHRUTHI, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (DISASTER MANAGEMENT) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION 8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 4. PRESTIGE ESTATES amended as per Court PROJECTS LIMITED Order dated 01.08.2019 ‘THE FALCON HOUSE’ NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SRI T.ARVIND PAI 5. BRIGADE ENTERPRISE LTD.
29TH AND 30TH FLOORS WORLD TRADE CENTRE BENGALURU BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, RAJKUMAR ROAD MALLESHWARAM RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT – LEGAL AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI SURESH YADWAD ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS-I, II AND III DATED 19.07.2011 (ANNEXURE –A) AND THE NOTIFICATIONS-I, II AND III DATED 04.11.2011 (ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 AND REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. This petitioner purportedly filed a public interest raising an objection to the notification issued by the State Government dated 19th July 2011. As described by the petitioner, the effect of the said notification is that “anywhere registration” of document is permitted in the Bengaluru urban area. Some of the averments made in the petition show that the facility has been misused. The challenge is also to the legality.
3. Prima facie, it appears to us that considering the various issues faced by the citizens in Bengaluru urban area such as traffic congestion etc., the State Government seems to have taken this decision in the public interest.
4. If according to the case of the petitioner, the facility is being misused and that the said scheme is resulting into registration of multiple documents in respect of the same property in different offices in the city, it is for the petitioner to make a representation to the appropriate authority of the State Government seeking revocation or modification of the impugned notification or for requesting the State to take measures to ensure that the facility is not misused. There is no averment pointed out to us showing any such representation was made by the petitioner before approaching the writ Court for seeking a writ of mandamus. Only on this ground, we decline to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly disposed of.
5. If the representation is made by the petitioner to the State Government, the concerned authority of the State Government will decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of which the representation is filed.
All contentions on merits are kept open.
The pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB