Dr S C Rajendran vs Mr V Sudhindranath
2022 Latest Caselaw 11563 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         PRESENT

                THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                    ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                              AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            WRIT APPEAL NO.14/2022(LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

1.     DR. S.C. RAJENDRAN
       S/O P.S. CHAKRAPANI
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

2.     DR. M. SASIKALA RAJENDRAN
       W/O DR. S.C. RAJENDRAN
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

       PRESENTLY BOTH ARE
       RESIDING AT NO.568
       3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK
       KORAMANGALA
       BENGALURU - 560 034.                ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI PAWAN KUMAR M.N, ADV.)

AND:

1.     MR. V. SUDHINDRANATH
       S/O D. VASUDEVAN
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       R/AT NO.571, GROUND FLOOR
       3RD CROSS, 15TH MAIN
       4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
       BENGALURU - 560 034.
                               2



2.   BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
     PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE
     BENGALURU - 560 002
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

3.   THE ASSISANT EXECUTIVE
     ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU
     MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     KORAMANGALA SUB DIVISION
     17TH A MAIN, 2ND CROSS
     5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
     BENGALURU - 560 096.                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADV., FOR C/R-1
    BBMP SERVED)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
FINAL ORDER DATED 29.11.2021 IN WP NO. 12792/2021 PASSED
BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE SAID WP NO 12792/2021.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON ADMISSION
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

1. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order

dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.No.12792/2021.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also

perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts that would be necessary for the purpose

of disposal of this appeal are, respondent no.1 herein had

filed an interlocutory application to implead him in an appeal

filed by the appellants herein before the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.788/2019,

against the order passed by respondent no.2 under Section

321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for

short, 'the Act'), and the said application was dismissed by

the Tribunal by its order dated 08.04.2021. Being aggrieved

by the same, respondent no.1 had filed W.P.No.12792/2021

before this Court contending that he was the complainant in

the proceedings which had resulted in passing of an order

under Section 321(3) of the Act, and therefore, he was a just

and necessary party to the proceedings before the Tribunal.

4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ

petition and permitted respondent no.1 to come on record as

party respondent in the appeal pending before the Tribunal.

Being aggrieved by the same, respondent nos.3 & 4 in the

writ petition who are the appellants in Appeal No.788/2019

have preferred this intra court appeal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants

submits that respondent no.1 is neither the neighbour nor the

resident of the locality, and therefore, he is not a just and

necessary party to the proceedings. He submits that

respondent no.1 has created documents to show that he is

the resident of the locality and the learned Single Judge

without appreciating this aspect of the matter has placed

reliance on the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.24083-87/2017

and has permitted respondent no.1 to come on record as

party respondent in the appeal proceedings. He submits that

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the order referred to by the learned

Single Judge had permitted the complainant therein to

participate in the proceedings as an intervener and not as a

party respondent.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent no.1 submits that the material on record would go

to show that the order under Section 321(3) of the Act was

passed on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent

no.1. He submits that the learned Single Judge was therefore

justified in permitting respondent no.1 to come on record as

party respondent to the appeal proceedings as he is a just

and necessary party to the said proceedings for proper

adjudication of the dispute involved therein. He also submits

that he has no objection to participate in the proceedings

before the Tribunal as an intervener as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the order on which reliance has been

placed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ

petition.

7. The material on record would clearly go to show that

the order under Section 321(3) of the Act was passed by the

competent authority based on the complaint lodged by

respondent no.1 herein alleging that the appellants herein

have put up unauthorized construction in their property. As

against the said order passed under Section 321(3) of the

Act, the appellants have preferred a statutory appeal before

the Tribunal and the application filed by respondent

no.1/complainant for impleading in the appeal proceedings

was dismissed by the Tribunal on 08.04.2021. The learned

Single Judge placing reliance on the orders passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos.24083-

87/2017, has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent

no.1/complainant and has permitted respondent no.1 to come

on record as party respondent in the appeal proceedings.

8. The Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.24083-87/2017

arose from an order passed by the Tribunal in similar

circumstances and in the said proceedings, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that the complainant can be

permitted to participate in the appeal proceedings as

intervener as they are proper parties to the proceedings.

Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that

though the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the

writ petition placing reliance on the order passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.24083-

87/2017, respondent no.1 ought to have been permitted to

participate in the proceedings as intervener as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and not as party respondent to the

proceedings. Under the circumstances, we are of the

considered view that the order passed by the learned Single

Judge which is impugned in this writ petition is required to be

modified to the said extent. Accordingly, the following order:

9. The writ appeal is allowed in part. The order passed

by the learned Single Judge is modified and it is held that

respondent no.1 is permitted to participate in the appeal

proceedings before the Tribunal as intervener only and not as

party respondent.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK