Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nirmala vs The Commissioner on 3 November, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:39095-DB
WA No. 765 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NIRMALA,
W/O LATE PRAKASH .S
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT No. 229/105,
SHAMANNA GARDEN, BELLANDUR,
BENGALURU - 560 103.
2. SRI RAMESH S
S/O LATE B M SHAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
Digitally signed 3. SMT. MANJULA P,
by SHARADA W/O SRI RAMESH S
VANI B AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. SRI. SHASHIDHAR S
KARNATAKA S/O LATE B M SHAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. SMT. KAVITHA,
W/O SRI SHASHIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
APPELLANT No.2 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO 229, 10TH CROSS, BELLANDUR,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 103.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:39095-DB
WA No. 765 of 2023
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 560 002.
2. THE HEALTH OFFICER
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BBMP,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
3. M/S PANCHARATHNA ENTERPRISES
BBMP KHATHA NO.1068/117772/1,
BLLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS
4. MR BALAJI POTHRAJ,
S/O MR POTHRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 44, MACIVER PLACE,
6TH CROSS, LEVELLE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. MR SADANANDA SHETTY,
S/O SUNDER K SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, VILLIYAMMA LAYOUT,
KASAVANAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
No.11789/2023 (LB-BMP) DATED 08.06.2023 IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER
OR FURTHER ORDER AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND
PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:39095-DB
WA No. 765 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This intra-court Appeal calls in question a learned
Single Judge's order dated 08.06.2023 whereby
W.P.No. 11789/2023 (LB-BMP) having been favoured,
relief has been granted to the Respondent Nos.3 to 5
herein who happened to be the Writ Petitioners. Learned
counsel for the Appellants submits that the said order has
been obtained by the said Respondents without arraying
the Appellants as parties to the same. Had they been
arrayed as parties, they would have resisted the Writ
Petition, and therefore, impugned order is liable to be
invalidated. They have moved an application seeking
leave to prosecute the Appeal.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the
Appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the 2nd respondent, we decline indulgence in
the matter inasmuch as it is open to the Appellants to file
another writ petition seeking review of the order put in
challenge before us in the light of the decision of Apex
NC: 2023:KHC:39095-DB
WA No. 765 of 2023
Court in SHIVDEO SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR
1963 SC 1909 wherein paragraph 8 reads as under:
"The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh
pertains to the second order of Khosla, J.,
which in effect, reviews his prior order.
Learned counsel contends that Art.226 of the
Constitution does not confer any power on the
High Court to review its own order and,
therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was
without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that
there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution
to preclude a High Court from exercising the
power of review which inheres in every court of
plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of
justice or to correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it. Here the previous order of
Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons
who were not made parties to the proceeding
before him. It was at their instance and for
giving them a hearing that Khosla' J.
entertained the second petition. In doing so,
he merely did what the principles of natural
justice required him to do. It is said that the
respondents before us had no right to apply for
review because they were not parties to the
previous proceedings. As we have already
pointed out, it is precisely because they were
not made parties to the previous proceedings,
though their interests were sought to be
affected by the decision of the High Court, that
the second application was entertained by
Khosla, J".
3. The decision in SHIVDEO SINGH supra has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in S.MADHUSUDHAN
NC: 2023:KHC:39095-DB
WA No. 765 of 2023
REDDY vs. V.NARAYANA REDDY, (2022) SCC ONLINE
SC 1034. That apart, in more or less, a similar fact
matrix in Writ Appeal No.344/2023 (KLR-RES) between
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA vs. STATE, we have relegated the
appellant therein to the remedy of review and therefore,
we cannot take a different view in the matter, no special
circumstances having been shown. After all, similar cases
need to be treated similarly, is a popular norm of
adjudication.
4. All the above being said, we need to observe that
if writ petition is filed as indicated above for review of the
impugned order, the period spent in prosecuting this
appeal and the period during which the appellants were
not aware of the proceedings in the subject writ petition
including the impugned order, the same shall be liable to
be discounted while considering arguable delay & laches, if
any.
NC: 2023:KHC:39095-DB
WA No. 765 of 2023
With the above observations, this writ Appeal is
disposed off, keeping open all contentions of the parties.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
