A Division Bench affirmed the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the conduct of an apartment association and private respondents, holding that disputes between residents and association office bearers regarding management, funds, and access are private in nature and not maintainable under writ jurisdiction.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:33274-DB WA No. 60 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 60 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI DILRAJ ROHI SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 T R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 20120/2023 (LB-BMP) DATED 22.11.2023 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Along with the interim application praying for condonation of delay which has taken place in preferring the present writ appeal, also are available before the Court the papers of the writ petition and the order of learned Single Judge impugned in the writ appeal.
the apartment and the association and therefore, the petition was not maintainable.
3.1 If the prayers are seen from the writ petition, the first prayer was to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to have the gates and barricades in the layout removed by respondent No.3authority. The second prayer for registration of the layout as an association or society or co-operative society under the provisions of Real Estates (Regulation and Development) Act. The third prayer was for directing the respondents to appoint Administrator to hold a General Body Meeting of the home owners to determine their majority. It was next prayed to direct respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the private parties, to appoint an Administrator to administer the finance of the association until the registered association becomes functional. The fifth prayer was against the same private respondents requiring them not to spend any money on capital expenses. The sixth and the last prayer were also against the private respondents not to spend money or expend the funds for any legal expenses.
3.2. The petitioner happens to be a resident of the residential housing layout in the name of Sobha City which was sanctioned by the Bengaluru Development Authority. It has 1958 dwellings of apartments and 44 row houses.
state that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been functioning as self-styled President and Secretary.
5.1 In paragraphs 14 and 15, averments are on similar lines that vehicles are not stopped and that they obstruct the home owners and visitors going to the houses. Various grievances and allegations are raised in different paragraphs as grounds which are in the nature of complaints against the President and the Secretary of the association of the layout, who are private respondents No.4 and 5.
5.2. Learned Single Judge was eminently right in taking the view that the disputes are between the petitioner and the private respondents, who are the office bearers of the layout and such disputes cannot be gone into in the writ petition. The writ petition was rightly held to be not maintainable.
5.3. Learned advocate for the appellant sought to submit that the first prayer was made against the authorities. The Court finds on a closer scrutiny that the said prayer in disguise is also in the nature of seeking ventilation of private disputes and is addressed effectively to the private parties who are the office bearers.
NC: 2024:KHC:33274-DB WA No. 60 of 2024
stands consequentially dismissed the writ appeal.
Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable to adjudicate disputes between apartment owners and the association/office bearers regarding management and access.
Whether the Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition as involving private disputes not suitable for writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mathew Thomas
State of Karnataka
Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Subramaniam C.
Sarvanan C.S.
N. V. Anjaria
K. V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
