Dismissed¶¶69

N. Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2025WP/23148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suppression of material facts; clean hands doctrine; suppressio veri; abuse of process; dismissal of PIL under Article 226; K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority (2022) 12 SCC 815; interim stay in Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023 with reference to Civil Appeal No.4116/2003; Cox Town cricket ground; BBMP lease to Indian Gymkhana dated 18.06.1968 renewed 35 years; Government Order No. NAE 152 MNG 2014 dated 29.09.2022; earlier Writ Petition No.25594 of 1994; costs Rs.35,000 payable to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority; bench of N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice and M.I. Arun, Judge; judgment per N.V. Anjaria, CJ.

What did the court decide?

The pendency of Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023, which was directly related to the subject matter of the present petition, amounted to suppression of material fact by the petitioner. ¶¶50

N. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the public interest petition is liable to be dismissed as an abuse of process, the petitioner having suppressed the pendency of Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023 filed by respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana and the interim stay of the Government Order dated 29.09.2022 granted therein, proceedings directly related to the subject matter of the petition. +1 more

¶¶50

Court's answer

The pendency of Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023, which was directly related to the subject matter of the present petition, amounted to suppression of material fact by the petitioner.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner did not file the present public interest petition with clean hands and is guilty of suppressio veri.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

Invoking the public interest jurisdiction by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in such circumstances is abuse of process of high degree; the writ jurisdiction is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and must be invoked for bona fide purposes and with clean hands.ratio¶¶64
The public interest petition was instituted with oblique purpose and to grind private interests; it partakes of abuse of process of law, and therefore costs deserve to be imposed while dismissing the petition.ratio¶¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 by an ex-MLA seeking a direction to BBMP to implement Government Order No. NAE 152 MNG 2014 dated 29.09.2022 and to take back 3 acres 13 guntas out of 4 acres 21 guntas at Ward No.79, Cox Town ('Cricket Ground of Cox Town'), leased to respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana by lease deed of 18.06.1968 (monthly rent Rs.50/-) later renewed for 35 years. DISMISSED on the ground of suppression of material fact: the petitioner, though respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023 filed by Indian Gymkhana against the same Government Order (whose operation stood stayed by interim order dated 10.03.2023 passed in light of the Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No.4116/2003), concealed the pendency of that directly connected proceeding despite having filed his vakalatnama on 29.05.2023 and statement of objections therein, and filed the present petition only on 06.10.2023. Held guilty of suppressio veri; the petition, styled as a PIL, was held to be instituted with oblique purpose to grind private interests and to constitute abuse of process of high degree, relying on K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2022) 12 SCC 815 (clean-hands/full-disclosure doctrine under Article 226). Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.35,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority on or before 15.03.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 23148 OF 2023 (LB-BMP-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

N. RAJANNA

¶10

S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS EX-CORPORATOR AND EX-MLA BHARATHI NAGAR CONSTITUENCY

¶11

NO.92, CC ROAD, COX TOWN BENGALURU-560005

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K H SOMASEKHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶20

DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001

¶21

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDING HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶22

INDIAN GYMKHANA

¶23

A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT NO.5, WHEELER ROAD, COX TOWN BANGALORE-560005 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI M GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 & 2; SMT. ABHIRAMI S. PILLAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S H PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 29.09.2022 MADE IN GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. NAE 152 MNG 2014; TO TAKE BACK THE LAND MEASURING 3 ACRE 13 GUNTAS OUT OF 4 ACRES 21 GUNTAS SITUATED AT WARD NO.79 (OLD WARD NO.85), COX TOWN, MILLERS ROAD, CTS NO.1378 WHICH WAS GIVEN TO BBMP FOR USE OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND CHILDREN PLAYGROUND AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶32

Heard learned advocate Mr. L.M. Chidanandayya for learned advocate Mr. K.H. Somasekhara for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Smt. Abhirami S. Pillai for learned advocate Mr. S.H. Prashanth for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. R. Subramanya for respondent No.4.

¶33

The petitioner in the present public interest petition is a former Member of Legislative Assembly who has projected himself as a social worker and who is also a complainant before the Lokayukta filed against respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana, Bengaluru.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶35

The prayers in the petition are to direct respondent No.3-the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to implement the order passed by respondent No.1-the Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of Karnataka, dated 29.09.2022 and to take back the land admeasuring 3 Acres and 13 Guntas out of 4 Acres and 21 Guntas situated at Ward No.79 (old Ward No.85), Cox Town, Millers Road, CTS No.1378.

¶36

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was shown as park and playground in the Comprehensive Development Plan and the same was used by the youths and the local public for the purpose of sports and other like activities since last several years. It is stated that the said ground is known as 'Cricket Ground of Cox Town' and that, well-known national level cricket players have practised on this ground. It is stated that even the school children use the ground.

¶37

3.2 It is the further case that respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana is not a bona fide Association and the activities of respondent No.4 show that it is not interested in encouraging sports and games. It is stated that despite that, in order to make personal gain, respondent

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶39

No.4 approached respondent No.3-the BBMP for grant of lease of the said ground. Respondent No.3 granted the lease for five years on 18.06.1968 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and that the said lease was thereafter renewed for a period of 35 years. It is alleged that respondent No.4 now intends to put up commercial complex and has approached the government for grant of permission and that, respondent No.1 granted the permission to put up construction. It is stated that such permission was granted on 02.09.1993 and the plan was sanctioned on 27.10.1993.

¶40

3.3 It is averred in the petition that the said permission and the sanctioned plan issued in favour of respondent No.4 was challenged by way of public interest petition, which was Writ Petition No.25594 of 1994, in which the court directed the government and the corporation to keep the land open as playground and open space for the use of public. It is in light of the above facts that the present public interest petition with the prayers as above is filed.

¶41

In course of the hearing, it was pointed out that respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana has filed Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023, in

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶44

which the court has issued notice as per the order dated

¶45

10.03.2023 and interim order was granted as under,

¶46

"5. Considering the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4116/2003, the operation of impugned Government Order No.NAAE.152.MNG.2014 dated 29.09.2022 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing."

¶47

Now, it is an admitted position that the present petitioner Mr. N. Rajanna son of late Nanjappa is respondent No.5 in the said Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023.

¶48

5.1 Not only that the present public interest petition is filed subsequently, the petitioner has suppressed the factum of the said Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023. It is to be noted that respondent No.5-petitioner herein filed his vakalatnama in the said writ petition on 29.05.2023. He further filed statement of objections in the said writ petition and thereafter filed the present petition on 06.10.2023 styling it as public interest petition.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶50

5.2 The pendency of the writ petition filed by respondent No.4Indian Gymkhana and the interim stay granted by this court in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is suppressed by the petitioner with impunity. The pendency of the said writ proceedings which was directly related to the subject matter of the present petition amounted to suppression of material fact. It has to be observed that the petitioner has not filed the present public interest petition with clean hands and is guilty of suppressio veri .

¶51

The Apex Court in K. JAYARAM AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

¶52

[(2022) 12 SCC 815) deprecated when a litigant abuses the process of law by fraudulently invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was observed that the petitioner must approach the court with clean hands by disclosing all materials within his knowledge.

¶53

6.1 The Apex Court observed as under,

¶54

"The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶56

court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced."

¶57

(Para 10)

¶58

6.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further highlighted the need to stop the menace of abuse of process of law resulting into inconsistent orders which are obtained by making misleading statements in the pleadings.

¶59

6.3 It was observed as under,

¶60

"In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement,

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶62

the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law."

¶63

(Para 14)

¶64

It is abuse of process of high degree when the public interest jurisdiction of the court is invoked by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, which jurisdiction has to be invoked for bona fide purposes and with clean hands.

¶65

It has to be further observed that the present petition, styling it as public interest petition, is filed to obtain undue advantage and have the leverage for the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 herein, that too by not disclosing the factum of pendency of such directly connected proceedings. The court could hardly entertain

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8022-DB WP No. 23148 of 2023

¶67

the petition in the circumstances when the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact and thereby has mislead the court.

¶68

Apparently, this public interest petition is instituted with oblique purpose and to grind private interests. It partakes abuse of process of law. Therefore, the cost deserves to be imposed while dismissing the petition.

¶69

As a result, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.35,000/(Rupees thirty five thousand only) which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority on or before 15.03.2025.

¶70

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶71

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶72

BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

N. Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chandrappa Neelappa Koppad Vs the Chief Secretary

S.B. Boregowda, Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Janata Vedike Vs State of Karnataka

Far East Broadcasting Associates of India Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Santosh Vs P. Manivannan IAS

Sri K N Hanumanthaiah Vs Apoorva Bidari