Karnataka High Court
Sri M Venkataswamy vs Doddathoguru Village Panchayat on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.4029 OF 2019 (LB-RES)
IN
W.P.No.47582 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. VENKATASWAMY
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED 55 YEARS
R/AT CHAITRASREE MEADOWS
NEAR H P OETROL BUNK
MYLASANDRA, BANGALORE-560058.
2. JNANABINDU SCHOOL
HOMMADEVANAHALLI
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE-560083
REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER
SMT. KAVITHA S.N.
VENKATASWAMY.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. JAYA KUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. VISHWANATH, ADV.,)
2
AND:
1. DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
DODDATHOGURU
BANGALORE-560100
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HULIMAVU POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560100.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FIRE
AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
KARNATAKA STATE FIRE AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPT
NO.1, ANNA SWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD
OPP. ULSOOR LAKE
BANGALORE-560046.
4. B.K. PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O B.M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT 407/9
B.M. KRISHNAPPA VATHARA
HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560083.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. M.D. BASAVANNA, ADV., FOR R1
MR. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2 & R3
MR. BIMBADHAR M. GOWDAR, ADV., FOR R4)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER IN WP
NO.47582/2017 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 27/09/2019 IN PURSUANT TO THE PETITIONER
NOS.1 AND 2.
3
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Jaykumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for the
appellants.
Mr.M.D.Basavanna, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Mr.B.Rajendra Prasad, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
In this intra Court appeal, the appellant has assailed
the validity of the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by
the respondent No.4 has been disposed of with a direction to
the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the
representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants, at the
outset, while inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph
4 of the order dated 27.09.2019, submits that even though
the appellants had pointed out that the respondent No.4 had
no locus to file the petition, the aforesaid matter was not
considered by the learned Single Judge. It is further
submitted that the respondent No.4 is the brother of the
Chairman of the respondent No.1 Grama Panchayat who had
sanctioned the plan for construction. It is further submitted
that the construction has been made in accordance with the
sanction granted by the Grama Panchayat.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 has disputed the aforesaid aspect of the
matter.
4. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of
the case and taking into account the fact that disputed
questions of law arise for adjudication and in view of the fact
that the respondent No.4 has remedy under the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, we set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. However, liberty is reserved to the
respondent No.4 to take recourse to such remedy as may be
available to him in law with regard to his grievance.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
