Shri Thimmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 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. 23730 OF 2022 (LB-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI THIMMAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGE 58 YEARS COUNCILOR WARD No. 06 OLD POST OFFICE ROAD NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶10

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. SYEDA SUMAIYAA W/O AHEEQ PASHA AGE 36 YEARS COUNCILOR, WARD No. 09 KUMBARA BEEDHI NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 MANDYA - 571 401.

¶12

MRS. MUBEEN TAJ W/O MOHAMMED LIYAS PASHA AGE 48 YEARS COUNCILOR, WARD No. 14 MANDYA ROAD, 3^RD CROSS NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶13

MRS. NAZIYA SULTHANA W/O JAMIL PASHA AGE: 38 YEARS COUNCILOR

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶15

WARD No.15, HANEEF MOHALLA MANDYA ROAD NAGAMANGALA 571432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶16

SMT. VASANTHALAKSHMI W/O ASHOK U.S. AGE 37 YEARS COUNCILOR WARD No.19 MYLAR PATNA BASAVESHWAR NAGAR UPPARAHALLI NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶17

MRS. ROOPA R W/O MANJUNATH B.K. AGE 31 YEARS COUNCILOR WARD No. 20 BADRI KOPPALU NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶18

MRS. JYOTHI B.S. W/O RAMESHA B.M. AGE: 30 YEARS COUNCILOR WARD No. 22 BEERESHWARAPURA KASABA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶19

MR. RIZWAN PASHA S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGE: 43 YEARS COUNCILOR WARD No. 11, MANDYA ROAD A.K. COLONY NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶21

MR. ALI ANSAR PASHA S/O NAZIM PHASHA AGE 50 YEARS COUNCILOR WARD NO .12, MANDYA ROAD HANIF MOHALLA NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶22

MR. RAMESH S/O LATE GAJAVA SHETTY AGE: 58 YEAS COUNCILOR WARD No.5, MYLAR PATNA ROAD T.B. BADAVANE NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶23

SHRI AVINASH KUMAR R S/O RACHAIAH AGE: 32 YEARS WARD No. 06 KST ROAD BESIDE KALIKAMBA ROAD NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶24

SHRI RAVIKANTA S/O N.L. MANJUNATH AGE: 46 YEARS WARD NO.9 VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶25

SHRI MOHAMMED RAZIQ S/O RIYAZ AHAMMED AGE: 21 YEARS WARD NO.14 MANDYA ROAD 3^RD CROSS NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶26

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶27

SHRI ATEEQ PASHA S/O MASOOD KHAN AGE: 35 YEARS WARD NO.15 MANDYA ROAD HANIF MOHALLA NAGAMANGLA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶28

SHRI T. RAMESHA S/O LATE V. THIMMAIAH UPPARAHALLI WARD No. 19 PALAGRAHARA NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶29

SHRI B.R. KUMAR S/O. RAMAHAIH AGE: 44 YEARS WARD No. 20 BHADRI KOPPALU NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶30

SRI JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGE: 43 YEARS WARD No. 22 BEERESHWARAPURA NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶31

SHRI SHOIB AKTHAR S/O GULZAR PHASHA AGE: 23 YEARS WARD NO.11 A.K. COLONY MYSORE ROAD NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶32

SHRI SATEER PHASHA S/O IQNABIL PHASHA AGE: 45 YEARS

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶34

WARD NO.12 HANEEFH MOHALLA MANDYA ROAD NAGAMANGALA - 571 432 DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶35

SHRI N.C. RAMESH S/O CHENNIGAPPA SHETTY AGE 68 YEARS, WARD NO.6 OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, NAGAMANGALA - 571 432

¶36

DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶37

…PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR SRI GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI

¶41

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶42

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶43

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶44

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.

¶45

THE CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶47

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT WELFARE UNIT MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.

¶48

THE CHIEF OFFICER NAGAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NAGAMANGALA

¶49

DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6 & SRI R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/03/2022 PASSED BY THE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - C AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/05/2022 BEARING NO.NaAaE.74.IST.2022 SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE APPROVAL OF SANCTIONS TO NAGAMANGALA TOWN, TQ., NAGAMANGALA DISTRICT MANDYA & ETC.

¶53

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

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶55

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

¶56

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶57

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

¶58

Heard learned advocate Smt. Sumangala Gurudev Gachchinamath for learned advocate Mr. Gurudev I. Gachchinamath for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and learned advocate Mr. R. Kothwal for respondent No.7.

¶59

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, styling it as a public interest litigation. The petitioners are the residents of Nagamangala Town. The first petitioner happens to be the Councilor of the Town Municipal Council, Nagamangala and also the resident of the town.

¶60

The petitioners are aggrieved in respect of releasing of grant to the different wards of Nagamanagala town under the Amruth Naragottan Yojane of the State Government which was introduced in the year 2009 - 2010. It is stated that three stages in the scheme

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶62

have already been implemented till the year 2016-2017 and that the State Government has set to implement the fourth stage and has issued guidelines for proper implementation and extending benefit into the scheme to the public at large. It is stated that under the guidelines, percentages are provided to the extent of which the amount will be released or shall be kept reserved with the City Municipal Council.

¶63

3.1 The case of the petitioners is that the Nagamangala Town consists of 23 wards represented by 23 councilors. It is stated that a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister on 28.03.2022 and it was noticed that some of the wards have been given the amount of grant under the said scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that certain wards are entirely excluded and discarded from giving of the grant. It is the allegation that "there is lot of politics being played in distribution of the funds." It is the case that the wards are lacking infrastructure and for such wards, grants are not made available.

¶64

3.2 With such basic pleadings, the petitioners have prayed to set aside the proceedings of the meeting dated 28.03.2022 which allocated the amounts of grant. It is also prayed to set aside the

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶66

order dated 16.05.2022, in so far as it pertains to the approval of grants for Nagamangala Town. The petitioners have further prayed to consider the representations made and reallocate the grants under the Amrut Nagarothanna Municipality Project (Stage 4) to Ward Nos.6, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of the Nagamangala Town.

¶67

Thus, the subject matter of grievance raised in the public interest petition is allegedly inequitable or unjust allocation of grants under the Government scheme to the different wards of the city called Nagamangala.

¶68

In Sri S. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (ILR 2004 KAR 3230) , which was also a public interest petition, the facts situation was similar. A writ of mandamus was prayed for by the public interest petitioner, who was a member of the Legislative Assembly. The direction sought for in the said petition is to ensure time-bound completion of the infrastructural projects sanctioned under the Chief Minister's New Bengaluru Planning Scheme and to sanction grant to a particular Assembly Constituency. It was the grievance that the grant was not properly sanctioned and was not duly allocated.

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶71

5.1 This Court disposing the said petition held that grievance of

¶72

such kind in nature could not be the subject matter of public interest litigation and a proper forum to raise the issues for the petitioner was elsewhere.

¶73

5.2 In paragraph 5 of the judgment in Mr. S. Muniraju ( Supra ), the Court held thus,

¶74

"5. The kind and nature of the grievance sought to be raised is a subject matter not fit to be brought by way of public interest litigation before the Court. Sanctioning of grant, the extent thereof, cancellation, modification, reduction or enhancement of amount of grant to be given to the assembly constituencies for the betterment of the people of the constituency is the subject matter to lie entirely in the domain of the elected government. As to what grant is to be sanctioned for a particular assembly constituency or part of the area is the decision to be taken by the Executive on behalf of the government of the day. It is essentially a policy decision of the popular government.

¶75

5.1 The High Court, in exercise of powers and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not make inroads in the decision making process in such spheres. A writ of mandamus would not lie to direct the elected government to sanction or release or increase or decrease the amount of grant which may be decided by the governmental authorities in their wisdom. The process of decision making process in such areas is guided by host of considerations, many of which are not capable of being examined by judicially manageable criteria. These are the decisions essentially to be taken and approved by the Cabinet."

¶76

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB WP No. 23730 of 2022

¶77

5.3 In the present case, similar grievance is raised by filing public interest litigation. The popular Government is the best Judge for taking care of the needs and interests of the wards and / or Constituencies, the people and the citizens. Whether the grant is properly allocated or how much is to be allocated to each ward , is not the matter to be gone into by the Court.

¶78

5.4 As stated above, host of considerations would apply. The first petitioner is an elected representative, who is the member of the said Town Municipal Council. It is also open for the petitioners to raise such issues before the appropriate forum. The right platform for the petitioners to raise and seek ventilation of such grievance is elsewhere and not before the Court.

¶79

For all the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is not liable to be entertained.

¶80

It stands dismissed.

¶81

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶82

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶83

KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Shri Thimmappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Thimmappa 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. K.T. Vijayakumar Vs Kala Krishna Swamy

Sri. Mallikarjun Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Rangappa Vs Sri. Nagaraj

Indian Nursing Council Vs M/S S v College of Nursing

K Praveen Vs K C Raju

H Ravipraksh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka