Karnataka High Court

Shri Thimmappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB
                                                 WP No. 23730 of 2022




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                       PRESENT
                    THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                           AND
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 23730 OF 2022 (LB-RES-PIL)
             BETWEEN:

             1.   SHRI THIMMAPPA
                  S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
                  AGE 58 YEARS
                  COUNCILOR
                  WARD No. 06
                  OLD POST OFFICE ROAD
                  NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
                  DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

             2.   SMT. SYEDA SUMAIYAA
                  W/O AHEEQ PASHA
                  AGE 36 YEARS
                  COUNCILOR, WARD No. 09
Digitally         KUMBARA BEEDHI
signed by         NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
PRABHAKAR         MANDYA - 571 401.
SWETHA
KRISHNAN     3.   MRS. MUBEEN TAJ
Location:         W/O MOHAMMED LIYAS PASHA
High Court        AGE 48 YEARS
of Karnataka      COUNCILOR, WARD No. 14
                  MANDYA ROAD, 3RD CROSS
                  NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
                  DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

             4.   MRS. NAZIYA SULTHANA
                  W/O JAMIL PASHA
                  AGE: 38 YEARS
                  COUNCILOR
                              -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB
                                    WP No. 23730 of 2022




     WARD No.15, HANEEF MOHALLA
     MANDYA ROAD
     NAGAMANGALA 571432
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

5.   SMT. VASANTHALAKSHMI
     W/O ASHOK U.S.
     AGE 37 YEARS
     COUNCILOR
     WARD No.19
     MYLAR PATNA
     BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
     UPPARAHALLI
     NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

6.   MRS. ROOPA R
     W/O MANJUNATH B.K.
     AGE 31 YEARS
     COUNCILOR
     WARD No. 20
     BADRI KOPPALU
     NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

7.   MRS. JYOTHI B.S.
     W/O RAMESHA B.M.
     AGE: 30 YEARS
     COUNCILOR
     WARD No. 22
     BEERESHWARAPURA KASABA HOBLI
     NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

8.   MR. RIZWAN PASHA
     S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE
     AGE: 43 YEARS
     COUNCILOR
     WARD No. 11, MANDYA ROAD
     A.K. COLONY
     NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.
                              -3-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB
                                   WP No. 23730 of 2022




9.   MR. ALI ANSAR PASHA
     S/O NAZIM PHASHA
     AGE 50 YEARS
     COUNCILOR
     WARD NO .12, MANDYA ROAD
     HANIF MOHALLA
     NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

10. MR. RAMESH
    S/O LATE GAJAVA SHETTY
    AGE: 58 YEAS
    COUNCILOR
    WARD No.5, MYLAR PATNA ROAD
    T.B. BADAVANE
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

11. SHRI AVINASH KUMAR R
    S/O RACHAIAH
    AGE: 32 YEARS
    WARD No. 06
    KST ROAD
    BESIDE KALIKAMBA ROAD
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

12. SHRI RAVIKANTA
    S/O N.L. MANJUNATH
    AGE: 46 YEARS
    WARD NO.9
    VEERABHADRA SWAMY
    TEMPLE STREET
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

13. SHRI MOHAMMED RAZIQ
    S/O RIYAZ AHAMMED
    AGE: 21 YEARS
    WARD NO.14
    MANDYA ROAD
    3RD CROSS
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.
                             -4-
                                  NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB
                                  WP No. 23730 of 2022




14. SHRI ATEEQ PASHA
    S/O MASOOD KHAN
    AGE: 35 YEARS
    WARD NO.15
    MANDYA ROAD
    HANIF MOHALLA
    NAGAMANGLA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

15. SHRI T. RAMESHA
    S/O LATE V. THIMMAIAH
    UPPARAHALLI
    WARD No. 19
    PALAGRAHARA
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

16. SHRI B.R. KUMAR
    S/O. RAMAHAIH
    AGE: 44 YEARS
    WARD No. 20
    BHADRI KOPPALU
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

17. SRI JAVAREGOWDA
    S/O LATE JAVARAIAH
    AGE: 43 YEARS
    WARD No. 22
    BEERESHWARAPURA
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

18. SHRI SHOIB AKTHAR
    S/O GULZAR PHASHA
    AGE: 23 YEARS
    WARD NO.11
    A.K. COLONY
    MYSORE ROAD
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

19. SHRI SATEER PHASHA
    S/O IQNABIL PHASHA
    AGE: 45 YEARS
                              -5-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB
                                    WP No. 23730 of 2022




     WARD NO.12
     HANEEFH MOHALLA
     MANDYA ROAD
     NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.

20. SHRI N.C. RAMESH
    S/O CHENNIGAPPA SHETTY
    AGE 68 YEARS,
    WARD NO.6
    OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
    NAGAMANGALA - 571 432
    DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.
                                         ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.,
 FOR SRI GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)


AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS SECRETARY TO
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
     M.S. BUILDING
     VIDHANA VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   THE DIRECTOR OF
     MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     MANDYA DISTRICT
     MANDYA - 571 401.

5.   THE CHIEF ENGINEER
     OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF
     MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                              -6-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB
                                         WP No. 23730 of 2022




6.   THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
     DISTRICT WELFARE UNIT
     MANDYA DISTRICT
     MANDYA - 571 401.

7.   THE CHIEF OFFICER
     NAGAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     NAGAMANGALA
     DISTRICT: MANDYA - 571 401.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6 &
 SRI R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH THE

IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/03/2022 PASSED BY

THE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - C AND ALSO THE

IMPUGNED       ORDER     DATED          16/05/2022   BEARING

NO.NaAaE.74.IST.2022    SO   FAR   IT    PERTAINS    TO   THE

APPROVAL OF SANCTIONS TO NAGAMANGALA TOWN, TQ.,

NAGAMANGALA DISTRICT MANDYA & ETC.


      THIS   PETITION   COMING     ON     FOR    PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN

AS UNDER:
                                   -7-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB
                                                WP No. 23730 of 2022




CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN


                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Smt. Sumangala Gurudev

Gachchinamath for learned advocate Mr. Gurudev I.

Gachchinamath for the petitioners, learned Additional Government

Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and

learned advocate Mr. R. Kothwal for respondent No.7.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution, styling it as a public interest litigation. The petitioners

are the residents of Nagamangala Town. The first petitioner

happens to be the Councilor of the Town Municipal Council,

Nagamangala and also the resident of the town.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved in respect of releasing of grant

to the different wards of Nagamanagala town under the Amruth

Naragottan Yojane of the State Government which was introduced

in the year 2009 - 2010. It is stated that three stages in the scheme

NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB

have already been implemented till the year 2016-2017 and that

the State Government has set to implement the fourth stage and

has issued guidelines for proper implementation and extending

benefit into the scheme to the public at large. It is stated that under

the guidelines, percentages are provided to the extent of which the

amount will be released or shall be kept reserved with the City

Municipal Council.

3.1 The case of the petitioners is that the Nagamangala Town

consists of 23 wards represented by 23 councilors. It is stated that

a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble

Minister on 28.03.2022 and it was noticed that some of the wards

have been given the amount of grant under the said scheme. It is

the case of the petitioner that certain wards are entirely excluded

and discarded from giving of the grant. It is the allegation that

"there is lot of politics being played in distribution of the funds." It is

the case that the wards are lacking infrastructure and for such

wards, grants are not made available.

3.2 With such basic pleadings, the petitioners have prayed to set

aside the proceedings of the meeting dated 28.03.2022 which

allocated the amounts of grant. It is also prayed to set aside the

NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB

order dated 16.05.2022, in so far as it pertains to the approval of

grants for Nagamangala Town. The petitioners have further prayed

to consider the representations made and reallocate the grants

under the Amrut Nagarothanna Municipality Project (Stage 4) to

Ward Nos.6, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of the Nagamangala Town.

4. Thus, the subject matter of grievance raised in the public

interest petition is allegedly inequitable or unjust allocation of

grants under the Government scheme to the different wards of the

city called Nagamangala.

5. In Sri S. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and others

reported in (ILR 2004 KAR 3230), which was also a public interest

petition, the facts situation was similar. A writ of mandamus was

prayed for by the public interest petitioner, who was a member of

the Legislative Assembly. The direction sought for in the said

petition is to ensure time-bound completion of the infrastructural

projects sanctioned under the Chief Minister's New Bengaluru

Planning Scheme and to sanction grant to a particular Assembly

Constituency. It was the grievance that the grant was not properly

sanctioned and was not duly allocated.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB

5.1 This Court disposing the said petition held that grievance of

such kind in nature could not be the subject matter of public

interest litigation and a proper forum to raise the issues for the

petitioner was elsewhere.

5.2 In paragraph 5 of the judgment in Mr. S. Muniraju (Supra),

the Court held thus,

"5. The kind and nature of the grievance sought to be raised is a subject matter not fit to be brought by way of public interest litigation before the Court. Sanctioning of grant, the extent thereof, cancellation, modification, reduction or enhancement of amount of grant to be given to the assembly constituencies for the betterment of the people of the constituency is the subject matter to lie entirely in the domain of the elected government. As to what grant is to be sanctioned for a particular assembly constituency or part of the area is the decision to be taken by the Executive on behalf of the government of the day. It is essentially a policy decision of the popular government.

5.1 The High Court, in exercise of powers and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not make inroads in the decision making process in such spheres. A writ of mandamus would not lie to direct the elected government to sanction or release or increase or decrease the amount of grant which may be decided by the governmental authorities in their wisdom. The process of decision making process in such areas is guided by host of considerations, many of which are not capable of being examined by judicially manageable criteria. These are the decisions essentially to be taken and approved by the Cabinet."

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1614-DB

5.3 In the present case, similar grievance is raised by filing public

interest litigation. The popular Government is the best Judge for

taking care of the needs and interests of the wards and / or

Constituencies, the people and the citizens. Whether the grant is

properly allocated or how much is to be allocated to each ward, is

not the matter to be gone into by the Court.

5.4 As stated above, host of considerations would apply. The

first petitioner is an elected representative, who is the member of

the said Town Municipal Council. It is also open for the petitioners

to raise such issues before the appropriate forum. The right