IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NOs. 5627-28 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYA BANK WORKERS ORGANISATION #2-7C/4, (B) MEGHA CUSTOMS AND EXCISE COLONY THIRUVAIL VAMANJUR MANGALURU – 575 028 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL SECRETARY RAGHURAM SUVARNA SON OF D. NARAYAN SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. KARUNAKAR SHETTY SON OF LATE KUNDU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS EX PRESIDENT VIJAYA BANK WORKERS ORGANISATION(REGD) RESIDING AT NO.3-50-(6) 17 ANUGRAHA GANDIA NAGAR KAVOOR POST MANGALURU – 575 015.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE SMT. MAMATHA ROY, ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KARNATAKA MANGALURU – 575 028.
3. MANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MANGALURU -575 028 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE PLANNING OFFICER DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE DAKSHINA KARNATAKA MANGALURU – 575 028.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 RESPONDENT 3 AND 4 SERVED) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 34038-34039/2017.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petitions, the petitioners have filed these appeals.
2. A certain road in Mangalore city was known as ‘Circle Light House’ road. Thereafter, it was changed as “Mulki Sundar Ram Shetty road”. By the Government Order dated 24.5.2017, approval was granted by the Government to rename the road as “Mulki Sundar Ram Shetty” road. Less than two months thereafter, the said order was stayed by the subsequent order of the Government dated 1.7.2017. Questioning the same, the writ petitioners challenged the said Government Order.
The learned Single judge was of the view that it is the authority of the Government to change the name of a public place and the same cannot be challenged. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. Questioning the same, the instant writ appeals are filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous since the procedure as established in law was followed while renaming the road as “Mulki Sundar Ram Shetty” road. Therefore, once this has been done after following due procedure in law, the same cannot be stayed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error in rejecting the petitions.
4. The same is disputed by the respondent.
5. On hearing the learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. If the Government has the power to rename the road, certainly it has power to interfere with the name that it has proposed earlier. Therefore, to hold that there is no power to change the name of the road is inappropriate. However, what is being contended by the appellants’ counsel is that the appellants may also be heard before the name of the road is changed or otherwise. The respondents have no objection to the same.
6. Under these circumstances, we deem it just and necessary that the concerned respondent hears the appellants herein and thereafter to take a decision with regard to renaming the road or withdrawing the name already granted, as expeditiously as possible. In view of the fact that there is a serious dispute with regard to the naming of the road, we do not think it appropriate that the road should continue to hold either the present name or the previous name. It is needless to observe that the respondents are also at liberty to reconsider the entire matter afresh as to whether the road requires to be renamed as “Mulki Sundar Ram Shetty” road or whether the earlier name of the road as ‘Circle Light House Road’ should continue or any other name could be proposed. All contentions are kept open for adjudication. The respondent to hear the appellants, the impleading respondent and all other interested persons before a decision is taken.
The appeal is disposed off.
The pending applications stand disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv