Karnataka High Court
The Regional Commissioner vs M/S Campus Polyplast Pvt Ltd on 23 August, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar, G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9418-DB
WA No. 100186 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100186 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
COURT COMPOUND,
NEAR RANI CHENNAMMA,
CIRCLE BELAGAVI - 590002.
2. MR. AMLAN ADITYA BISWAS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O. SUDHANSU SEKHAR BISWAS
THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI DIVISION AND ADMINISTRATOR
HDMC, HAVING OFFICE AT NEAR RANI CHENNAMMA
CIRCLE BELAGAVI- 590002.
ROHAN ....APPELLANTS
HADIMANI (BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
T
AND:
Digitally signed
by ROHAN 1. M/S. CAMPUS POLYPLAST PVT LTD.,
HADIMANI T
Date: REGISTERED ( INCORPORATED ) COMPANY
2023.08.29
12:01:16 -0700 THROUGH AUTHORISED PERSON
M/S. LVT CONTAINER,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SHRI ANKIT S/O. PANKAJ THAKKAR,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
2ND GATE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI- 580030.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9418-DB
WA No. 100186 of 2022
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
LAMINGTON ROAD,HUBBALLI- 580020.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
SRI. SIDDAPPAKAMBLI ROAD,
HUBBALLI- 580020.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FOR URBAN DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY,
BENGALURU- 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH K.JAWALKAR, ADV.FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI GURUDEV I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.101404/2021 AND FURTHER TO
DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION., IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9418-DB
WA No. 100186 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal arises out of the impugned
order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.101404/2021, whereby the said
petition filed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was
allowed by the learned Single Judge, who also went ahead
and imposed an exemplary punitive costs of Rs.1,00,000/-
upon the 1st appellant and to be payable from the pocket
of appellant No.2.
2. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner preferred the
aforesaid petition assailing the order dated 07.11.2020
passed by the Principal Secretary for Urban Development
Authority and for other reliefs. In the said petition, the 1st
appellant herein was arrayed as respondent No.3, while
the 2nd appellant herein who is the Regional Commissioner
in his personal capacity was not a party to the petition.
After contest, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass
the impugned order allowing the petition filed by the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner. In addition thereto, the learned
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9418-DB
WA No. 100186 of 2022
Single Judge imposed exemplary/punitive costs of
Rs.1,00,000/- by way of damages in favour of respondent
No.1/writ petitioner and to be recovered from the 2nd
appellant-the Regional Commissioner in his personal
capacity from his own pocket. Aggrieved by the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge only insofar as it
relates to imposition of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the
appellants, they are before this Court by way of the
present appeal.
3. A perusal of the impugned order, in particularly
paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the impugned order will
indicate that neither valid nor sufficient reasons have been
assigned by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of
imposing the aforesaid costs upon the appellants. It is also
relevant to state that mere cancellation of the tender
notification by the appellants cannot lead to any inference
that they are to be saddled with the exemplary/punitive
costs especially without an opportunity in favour of
appellant No.2, who was not even arrayed as a party to
the writ petition in his personal capacity and as such, the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9418-DB
WA No. 100186 of 2022
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
directing payment of costs from the pocket of appellant
No.2 is clearly a complete and total negation of principles
of all natural justice, in as much as, the 2nd appellant was
neither a party to the writ petition nor was he given an
opportunity with regard to imposition of cost payable from
his pocket. It is well settled that before cost are imposed
by a Court upon a person who is not a party to the
proceedings in his personal capacity, it is imperative that
an opportunity be provided/granted to him and cogent and
valid reasons are to be assigned by the Court before
proceeding for imposition of heavy / exemplary cost.
Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge at paragraph Nos.21 and 22
directing imposition of cost upon the appellants is clearly
erroneous and unsound and same deserves to be set
aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Appeal is partly allowed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9418-DB
WA No. 100186 of 2022
(ii) The impugned order dated 09.03.2022
passed in Writ Petition No.101404/2021 by the
learned Single Judge is hereby set aside to the
limited extent of imposing Rs.1,00,000/- costs
upon the appellants.
(iii) It is made clear that this order is restricted
/ limited to setting aside Rs.1,00,000/- costs
imposed upon the appellants herein and without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties in the connected Writ Appeal
No.100278/2022 which is still pending
adjudication and the remaining portion of the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge is
not interfered with in this appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK
