Karnataka High Court
Smt Rama N Gouda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 9 September, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
WA No. 100308 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.100308 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMA N. GOUDA
AGE ABOUT 82 YEARS
W/O LATE. NARAYAN GOUDA
OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA, BAITKHOL-581302
TQ: KARWAR. DISTRICT :U.K
2. SMT.KUSUMA A.JOSHI
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O ANAND JOSHI
OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA, BAITKHOL-581302
TQ: KARWAR
DISTRICT :U.K
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
3. SMT.KRISHNABAI A.GOUDA
R AGE ABOUT 72 YEARS
Location: High
Court of W/O ARJUN GOUDA
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA, BAITKHOL-581302
TQ: KARWAR. DISTRICT :U.K
4. SMT.ALKA PUNDLIK BHONGLE
AGE ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O PUNDLIKBHONGLE
OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA,
BAITKHOL-581302
TQ: KARWAR, DISTRICT :U.K
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
WA No. 100308 of 2023
5. SMT.MALINI R PEDNEKAR
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O RATNAKAR PEDNEKAR
OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA,
BAITKHOL-581302
TQ: KARWAR, DISTRICT :U.K
6. SMT.GEETA R.GOUDA
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O RAJU GOUDA
OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA, BAITKHOL-581302
TQ: KARWAR, DISTRICT :U.K
7. SMT.KUSUMA L.GOUDA
AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS
W/O LAKSHMAN GOUDA
OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA, BAITKHOL-581302
8. SMT.MOHINI GAJANAN GOUDA
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O GAJANAN GOUDA
OCC: NIL
R/O BHUDEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
GOUDAWADA, BAITKHOL-581302
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARWAR581301.
TQ: KARWAR, DISTRICT :U.K
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
KARWAR DIVISION,
M.G. ROAD, KARWAR 581301.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
WA No. 100308 of 2023
TQ: KARWAR, DISTRICT :U.K
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST.
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY.
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR 581301 TQ: KARWAR. DISTRICT :U.K
4. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT &
FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
IA DIVISION,
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,
JORBAGH ROAD,
ALIGUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110 003.
5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
PROJECT SEABIRD.
WEST BLOCK V,
R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI 110066.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION,
PROJECT SEABIRD,
NAVAL BASE, ARGA.
KARWAR 581308
TQ: KARWAR, DISTRICT :U.K.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, A. CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO
WRIT PETITION NO.101836/2023 (GM-RES) FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS HEREIN BEFORE THE LD.SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BEL COURT. B. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2023
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WRIT PETITION NOS.101836/2023 (GM-RES) AND FURTHER TO
ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION, AND GRANT THE RELIEFS SOUGHT
THEREIN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
WA No. 100308 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
This Intra-Court appeal seeks to call in question a
learned Single Judge's order dated 05.04.2023 whereby
appellant's W.P.No.101836/2023 (GM-RES) has been
negatived. Two principal prayers made in the writ petition
run as under:
"i) Issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction
including a Writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondents to stop forthwith
any road construction activity including the
chopping of trees, uprooting of the trees, cutting
of the hills on the Bhudevi Hills, Karwar Taluka,
U.K.District.
ii) To direct the respondents to restitute the
damages made to the Bhudevi Hill by putting
back the Soil & Stones removed from the hill to
bring back to the original topography so as to
avoid any unforeseen circumstances/situation
due to heavy landslides before the onset of
monsoon."
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
his usual attractive style argues that several contentions
taken up before the learned Single Judge have not been
adverted to in the impugned order; the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge that the petition not having been filed
in PIL jurisdiction, no relief of the kind can be granted, is
faultsome; the appellants had ventilated their own rights
and are not espousing any public interest; deforestation and
damage to environment and ecology that are happening in
and around the residential area of the appellants violate
their right to life guaranteed under Articles 21 of the
Constitution of India as broadly interpreted by the Apex
Court. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ appeal and
grant of petition prayers.
3. Learned advocates appearing for the other side
resist the appeal succinctly contending that: The area
wherein the accomplishment of defence project has been
undertaken is miles away from the residential place of the
appellants; already the project has been completed and the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
same is of enormous defence interest of the country; very
belatedly, the petition was filed by the appellants, and no
explanation is offered for the long delay brooked; any
project of the kind may involve some prejudice to the
forest, ecology & environment, which is inevitable; public
interest overrides the arguable private interest; no legal
right of the appellants is infringed, much less mutilated;
petition lacked bonafide and appeal too is devoid of it. So
contending, they seek dismissal of the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we
decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
reasoning of learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the defence
project in question had commenced long ago and has been
already accomplished, leaving nothing more to be done. No
plausible explanation has been offered for knocking at the
doors of the Writ Court after brooking enormous delay.
Project of the kind obviously involves colossal funds and
man power. The project is of the defence department; they
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
are planned well in advance with expertise of several
stakeholders entering the elements of decisions. In matters
of national importance, courts have to be slow & cautious.
All this appears to be the inarticulate premise of the
impugned judgment of learned Single Judge and therefore,
the same cannot be invalidated, at this length of time and
stage of accomplishment. It was Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832), a great English philosopher and Jurist who said that
law does not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy.
5. Learned Single Judge is right in observing, at
para 3, that, "The petitioners, admittedly, are not residing
within the area acquired for the Sea Bird Naval Base. They
have no rights over the properties sought to be utilized by
respondent Nos.5 & 6. ... Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are utilizing
the area for National Security Purposes. Further, the
counsel appearing for them, upon instructions has
submitted that the same is being developed in the manner
known to law without effecting the ecology." What legal
rights of the appellants have been violated is not
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
demonstrated despite vociferous submissions of their
learned counsel. It is not that every prejudice would give a
choate cause of action for maintaining proceedings of the
kind. In every human institution, a small evil is tolerated as
of necessity, to achieve greater good of the community. In
gigantic project of the kind, one or other infirmities may
remain and they are like mole hills in the mountain. Unless
such infirmities are show to go to very root of the matter,
ongoing project, especially relating to defence, cannot be
halted nor be undone if already accomplished. They fall into
the class to which fait accompli is attracted, subject to all
just exceptions. True it is, that a small damage to forest,
ecology and environment may cause prejudice to the
citizens residing in the vicinity. That happens inevitably. In
all such cases, one cannot rush to the Court that too years
after the commencement of execution of such projects.
Such litigation should not be encouraged.
6. The last contention of the appellants' counsel
that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that it was
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12899-DB
not a case of public interest, is true. The appellants have
structured their petition on the premise that their own
rights are infringed and that they are not espousing any
public interest. Learned counsel is also right in submitting
that, in form & substance the petition is personal to the
parties and that it is not a social action litigation. However,
for the reasons already assigned by us as above, such a
contention regardless of its truthfulness does not make any
difference to the outcome of this appeal and therefore, not
much deliberated upon.
In the above circumstances, this appeal being
unworthy of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it
is, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
KMS
