The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a public interest litigation petition filed by a habitual litigant seeking demolition of road encroachments. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as it lacked material facts and was frivolous, imposing costs on the petitioner.
Writ petition dismissed; costs of Rs.50,000 imposed on the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.7363 OF 2021(LB-BMP-PIL)
BETWEEN:
SRI PRASHANT RAO AGED 45 YAERS, S/O GOVIND RAO 47/A, FIRST BLOCK, FIRST MAIN TYGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 028
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASHANT RAO, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
2
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SHOBHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THAT THIS APPLICATION IS BEING MOVED BONA FIDE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THE PREMISES, YOUR PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS YOUR LORDSHIPS FOR THE FOLLOWING a)THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF ROAD ENCROACHMENT IN THYAGARAJANAGAR FIRST BLOCK, BBMP WARD 154, BENGALURU560028 MARKED ANNEXURE-A1 AND ANNEXURE-A2 PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO WAY/RIGHT TO SAFETY AND b)AND KINDLY PASS ANY SUCH OTHER OR ORDER OR ORDERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the petitioner in person as well as learned counsel
for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.4.
"a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or any other appropriate order to the respondents for demolition and removal of road encroachment in Tyagarajanagar first block, BBMP ward 154, Bengaluru - 560028 marked Annexure A1 & Annexure A2 protecting the right to way/right to safety.
b) And kindly pass any such other or order or orders as to your Lordships may deem proper and fit for giving the basic meaning to Justice & Equity."
4
petition was dismissed by a detailed judgment and order dated 07.09.2021. Now again the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition this time alleging encroachment by the temple situated on that road. It is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual public interest litigation activists. He is in a habit of filing frivolous petitions. The petitioner had also filed W.P.No.4145/2020 which was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2021. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that same relief has been sought before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5
footpath. In this regard, averments have been made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition which are reproduced below:
"10. The complainant has an elder mother who
is crippled after a fall from the unscientific footpath laid by the first respondent. The petitioner's mother had a physiotherapy session lasting for over 10 days and every day the petitioner had to fight his way out to reach the hospital. The man made corona virus virulence restricts the petitioner's elder parents to four walls letting to suffer the agony of noise and air pollution due to road encroachment. The complainant has to fight his way out while walking out of the house or taking the vehicle out violating the right to way and right to access as conferred by the Constitution of India. It might be respondent's own old parent or a small child looking to basically walk safely on the footway-footpath. Panduranga road encroachment invokes Indian Penal Code 268, Indian Penal Code 278, Indian Penal Code 283 and Indian Penal Code 441 causing hardship to the petitioner."
has personal interest in the matter and has filed one after another writ petition alleging encroachment over the land in
6
question. The earlier writ petitions have been dismissed as noted above and now again he has filed the instant writ petition which is not maintainable in view of the fact that it is bereft of the relevant material information and necessary facts.
7
petitioner does not deposit the same within six weeks, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District shall take appropriate action for recovery of the same.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
CA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the petitioner's history of filing frivolous petitions on similar facts.
Whether the instant petition satisfies the parameters for public interest litigation laid down by the Apex Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttaranchal vs. Balawanth Singh Chaufal and OthersReferred¶6
State of Uttaranchal vs. Balawanth Singh Chaufal and Others (2010) 3 SCC 402 · Who else cites this
Sri Prashant Rao
The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagare Palike
The Commissioner of Police Bengaluru
IGP and Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic)
The Chairman Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
Ritu Raj Awasthi
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
