Allowed

Sri. v. Sudindranath v Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021WP/12792/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court quashed an order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal that declined to permit the petitioner to come on record as a party respondent in proceedings initiated by a third party against notices issued by the BBMP.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.04.2021 by the Tribunal is quashed and petitioner is permitted to come on record as a party respondent in the proceedings.

Sri. v. Sudindranath Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12792/2021 (LB - BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. V. SUDINDRANATH S/O. D. VASUDEVAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR, 571 3^RD CROSS, 15^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶11

AND

¶12

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE

¶13

BENGALURU - 560 002

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE

¶15

ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KORAMANGALA SUB DIVISION 17^TH A MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK

¶16

KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 096

¶17

¶18

DR. S.C. RAJENDRAN S/O. P.S. CHAKRAPANI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.851 8^TH CROSS, 8^TH BLOCK OPP: RAMAIAH REDDY JAYAMMA KALYANA MANTAPA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶19

DR. M. SASIKALA RAJENDRAN W/O. DR. S.C. RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.851 8^TH CROSS, 8^TH BLOCK OPP: RAMAIAH REDDY JAYAMMA KALYANA MANTAPA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

[BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND STRIKE DOWN THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.788/2019 (CH-1) DTD. 8.4.2021 AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ERRONEOUS AND ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petition is filed against an interlocutory order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.788/2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) on 08.04.2021 declining to permit the petitioner to come on record as a party respondent in the proceedings that respondent No.3 has initiated before the Tribunal against the notices issued by the respondents - BBMP in terms of Section 321 (1) (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).

¶27

The petitioner who claims that, it is pursuant to his complaint being registered before the respondents - BBMP. Under Section 321 (1) (2)and (3) of the said Act, notices have emanated is partially vindicative as the date of registration of complaint of the petitioner is on 05.11.2021 and the notice was issued by the respondents - BBMP in terms of Section 321(1) of the said Act on 10.12.2018.

¶28

¶29

Therefore, the link in the chain of events would

¶30

indicate that it is on the complaint of the petitioner, the respondents - BBMP had issued the notices on certain alleged illegal construction undertaken by respondent No.3.

¶31

The Apex Court in an identical matter in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2408324087/2017 dated 05.09.2019, where the Tribunal had declined to permit the complainant to come on record, has passed the following order:

¶32

"ORDER

¶33

The present Special Leave Petitions have been filed to challenge the order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the High Court, whereby the Respondents 3 to 7 have been allowed to be impleaded in Appeal No.863/2014 filed by the Petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore.

¶34

The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had rejected their application for impleadment vide order dated 26.06.2015, which was set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, on the ground, that Respondents 3 to 7 are not total strangers, but members of the Citizens Forum for

¶35

¶36

Safe Environment who had filed the complaint before the Municipal Corporation regarding the unauthorised construction on the Terrace Floor, and additional floor above the Terrace Floor for commercial purposes. The Single Judge held that Respondents 3 to 7 are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.

¶37

The Division Bench dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein.

¶38

We have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶39

We permit Respondents 3 to 7 to participate in the proceedings as Intervenors before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as they are proper parties to the proceedings.

¶40

The Interim order granted by this Court on 01.09.2017 is vacated.

¶41

The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of

¶42

accordingly.

¶43

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of."

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Writ Petition is allowed.

¶47

ii. Order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the Tribunal stands quashed.

¶48

¶49

iii. The petitioner is permitted to come on record as a party respondent in the proceedings.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

SJK

Sri. v. Sudindranath v Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. v. Sudindranath v Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K N Shankaranarayana Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Gayathri Vs State of Karnataka

Rajanna Vs the Commissioner

Smt.Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

L C Masthan Reddy Vs Davanagere Municipal Corporation