(BY SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI S.K., ADVOCATE) v. SRI. SUNIL NARAYAN NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Dec 2023
- Bench
- SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Outcome
Dismissed
i) Writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Though learned counsel the petitioner seeks permission to file a public interest litigation, I am of the considered opinion that the filing of the present petition being an abuse of process of Court, necessary orders would have to be passed in respect thereto. As…
Judgment
SRI MADHUSUDHAN M S/O MUNIYAPPA B, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, 4TH PHASE, 7TH BLOCK, GURURAJA LAYOUT, PADMANAABHANAGARA, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. (BY SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI S.K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.
ZONAL COMMISSIONER (BOMMANAHALLI) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE , BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BBMP COMMERCIAL BUILDING, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6651 WP No. 8675 of 2023 HC-KAR
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WARD NO.184,UTTARAHALLI (NEXT TO SUBRAMANYA PURA POLICE STATION), BENGALURU-560061.
SMT. MAHESH MARINENI SUBRAMANYAM MAJOR, NO.86/86, AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI VILLAGE, WARD NO.184, BENGALURU-560064 (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. DEEPIKA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL NARAYAN NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT AS DEEMS FIT TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DTD 27.12.2022 PASSED BY THE R-3 UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 ANNEXURE-A THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6651 WP No. 8675 of 2023 HC-KAR a)
Issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ as deem fit to implement the order dated 27/12/2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 ANNEXURE-A. (b) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case.
2. The Petitioner has made an allegation against Respondent No.5 that Respondent No.5 not having been constructed a building in terms of the applicable building bylaws.
3. The contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.5 is that the Petitioner is not a neighbour and is not even residing in the area where Respondent No.5 is putting up construction. Inasmuch as Respondent No.5 is putting up construction in the property bearing Municipal No.86/86 siuated at 4th Cross, AGS layout, Arehalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Ward No.184, Bengaluru-56064, whereas the Petitioner is a resident of No.11. 2nd floor, 10th Main, 4th Phase, 7th Block, Gururaja layout Padmanabhanagara BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-56085.
4. She also relies upon one other order passed by this Court dated 13.12.2023 in WP No.21726/2023 to contend that - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6651 WP No. 8675 of 2023 HC-KAR the Petitioner had filed one other petition against one other respondent on similar grounds, which this Court had dismissed on the ground it was not maintainable, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a Public Interest Litigation.
5. She submits that the petitioner being one and the same in both the matters, the above petition is an abuse of the process of Court and the same ought to be dismissed.
Operative part
Though learned counsel the petitioner seeks permission to file a public interest litigation, I am of the considered opinion that the filing of the present petition being an abuse of process of Court, necessary orders would have to be passed in respect thereto. As such, I pass the following : ORDER i) Writ petition is dismissed. ii) A cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the Petitioner, which shall be paid to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Fund. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6651 WP No. 8675 of 2023 HC-KAR iii) Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to file a public interest litigation. iv) If the costs are not paid, the Public Interest Litigation will not be considered. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: i) Writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 13 Dec 2023. The bench was SURAJ GOVINDARAJ.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.