High Court Karnataka High Court

J Hemachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
J Hemachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2010
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar Swamy
1 "V

I? -31.3... Hléirfi GQURT QF K..A..R..HATAK.A

AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 8*-*1 day 1L;
Between: ' V ' .
1. J HEMA.C£{A:s§DRggég' 7   PE'T'E'I'IONElR5S

~  5lf:  :j._[Bg ]§:;;i  P~i"E§$§§§)11.»AdV]

1. s*m_'1*:::%%o1'=*  $5 OTHERS  RESPONDENTS

; 'V _  _[Zv'is'4 Gectila Manon, AGA for R»-1;
  M] 2: Ashok'  Associates 65 R Subramanya
 "Advsfor R-2; Ms Aujana Snndar, Adv for R~3 5:. 4;
..     U Abdul Khader, Adv for R-5]

 ~.  €*2§'§s--..w*:§'£% PETITEGN ES FILI3fl EENIJER AR'E'ECLES 226 ms

213? QFTHE-.v.$GN8'FITUTEGN (BF ENDIA, PRAYENG TC} DIRECT 'THE
RESPC}iS§DE'I'€iTS TS TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TC? COMPLY WFTH
THE {1E§?;ECTI€3N ISSUE?) BY THES CGURT AS PER ANNEXURE-A

 : AND FURTHER D1REC'I"E'Ir{E RESPONDENTS TO EVICT, DEMQLESH
 T'HE. S"E'RUC'E'URES ON THE PARK AND QESTORE THE LANE AS A
 PA.F<'.f{ AN!) f33'f'C,,

THIS PETITIQN IS COMING ON F03 FUEVFHER HEARENG

V'  "'f'HiS DAY, SHYLENIJJRA KUKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:



2
ORDER

Per L Naragarza Swamy, J:

Ms Anjana Sundar, Rearmed counsel

3 ané. 4, made submissions thgt

heard in part, may be

the said submission has ¥:)c*.%é,’11.._VI..}:1z;1(Vi<'-.:..<;';¥::(;<x
addressed by her clicfmts — 4 -~ to her
ané Inarldng cepy V<ii'-fit. , J-udgc -Justice: D V
Shylendra aI1{.-?;aiI;s::i:: Chief Justice.

2. wave gi;;:e4.:,$;fe:;gjI%; “Sf1s:V_Eetter dated 11.1 1.2009

produced s_ui§$itted by the Registrar
(Vigilance), ‘vi/’i_161″;?:i11”}s1 remark has been made

against aformei? jucigé, tfllich makes me to recuse frem

n;£i{téf’;”L gflgcordjfigly, piace the matter before the

for appropriate orders.

3
Per D V Shyiendra Kumar, J

3. When the matter was taken u§ for .4 Ms
Arfiana Sunday, learned counsel for respor:fc:1:”er,1t:s:V 4,’

made a submission that the m§:»1t”t?e:” may Ecficegsed §’1:()1:£1f

part heard. While I was Ito:

{he request, as my leaI11Ve(}.vL:’L: :'{)Ifothht”:r’~-
Swamy had some resfttijyfatiofi’ fflatvjthe learned
caunsei who has should mention

the reason as’ R} f1’i7I”1y;=__SU;iZ§1′;S’£ZIbfi1iSSiQI} was made.

4. :§3i1t:iCiaTf-, COL1I”}S€1 for respoladents
3 ané 4 filffiffiifitf the mason in the: court, as

theV1«E:;;arI1€:’tiw {;_v’;f>mf1%l f._é1ii the counsel and the judge are

V’ . gt ghe fiidfiteiits of the letter received from her

‘VV<:,'1_:'1{V=:'2'i*.'.'$',' sha had been instznlcted to make a

sA1:241;2I:::13;_ss:i ;;%1j;=a Asaekirxg to release the case from hearing

V n bcihifi Bmch.

H However, on counsel being apprised that she need

‘ not have any reservafion in reveafmg the rmsans and that

§/

-w Maw” WWW-mm vowm aw»»mww~wamwm~m $u!£K*~¢’I7’5i- my-‘wwwmgi we uswwmaemawwwwazr. <2'e,:s='=.x'wa uwwma

4
the court proceedings are open proceedings; tlaatthere is

no private transaction between a counsel anria’ a

party and a judge, and it wiil be in the

reveal as to the reasons for nixaking j,s’u_(:1″‘i’ s11h_fi*1i§s§en’~.._ V

and in the meanwhiie the counsel” ail_ ‘jf)1.4e3e’:’;t
in the court having been the letter
had been received ‘ me Ms fiekashamma,

President, Priyadarshi12i:’_i*»4aifiVi1Ls1 ‘Ne 13, 2336’ Cross,

Okalipuramg ifiagar, Bangalore-2 1,

addressed and had been

received at-griyi wtiieh-reads as ‘under:

‘PR:YAeARSr:i:’v;.”MAH1LA MILAN
_(,’l’ Lakshmanjv-.Rc2e Itfagarg # 13, (2nd Cross
3 eAOka£r;i;u,r:arn, Bangaiore — 560 021

w e 4V{Presidenz ; Prakashamma)

Eate I 1*} }~–2009

ire:

” 53:3; Aiijana Sunder (Advomte)
A’ ‘#._1.?’0, MRCR, 18*?! Cross
“§V§;’ayanagar, Bangelere-40

V’ H H Respected Madam,

5

Sub: Partiality by Judge Shailendm
Kmnar hearing WP No
16206/2005

We, the undersigned, (on behaif (3,? _o
houses) wish to submit this my kind ‘letter’ V.
your kind consideration and favourabke
Amma! we comes finm poor ‘
belongs to SC community. We are; poor ”
and straggling [sic] hard to :1 xsquare’-:;}edIVV
per day. ‘

Amma! we are miaeh thomkfitl V30 E<3¥e,~»for
winning our cases suoéier.$;sjix.lly émd'rii'ade: us to
built [séc] our 33 houses, 'iaonowirzgiothe loan
of 6! sum of R$"'«.12.'00;0DQ,'.-_ {Rupees tweive
lakhs only] for expenees, it is very
appreciat-able [s%'<«:l.f<=zi yaw? géod

""" ,?1m:i'i%z3' we""were""£?Lere at the court hall.

.- "re: Kumar has neglected

ebout V the order passed by
jucigeee was shown,

"said 'it is not that judge'5

" _i Vgmnd f:;ther's property to change dimerttion

ciimention [sic] was changed
V .. _ _Vac.ccx:féi'z'ng to wrporatiorz plan only.

. ‘ One Mr Hanumcm thappa was

::.et_”z;1A any association during 1999. He has

z ierétted [sic] the faise ease against as in WP No
v1_{:é910/1996 that he was a preeident of

Okzalipuram Resident? Welfare Associetiien, I8’

Cross, Bcmgaiere-21. Then ficsfiee

Chandrashekaraialz, found the reality and
warned him not to repeat the same and stop
eheaiing eouzt. The case is not public interest

e/o

7

favour so far judge said he is confused about
case.

Amma! we shail approached them -.

judge for suitabfie justice _
shailendraicwnar is doing thejudgenzént rI;$.hzLs4 –
own without hearing our Aci;n;2cates;’ ‘A:zi’r_mc:if.we

shall transfer this case toCsom’e« ether ;iuS2n_:e

future. Otherwise, 33 fari2iZie$ »25Q.’pe’c;r:’rEe
will be on roads, we are poo’r. and ‘

Thanking you, ‘ T –

% Aiéiurfs faamay,

{§1’HANDRAM§»IA)

The ” ” (fourt of
Kamataka, Banggaicref’ .. _ é

_ J.u.s£L’oé; -.;SVLVqt’9ref§1e Gem’: of India,
I ….. 4.

High Court of

‘fiqngaiore

V RE} *4}: Gundu Rao, 3 E, MLA,
‘ ‘ -« I jv ‘ ~ Gxzndhinagar

Meena, Corporation

‘ ‘ « -€.?ofte3missioner, Bangaiare

M

wrmmu-uum max-wmm¥w1v.¥5 Wm xwwummwxmmwrmim mwammm ‘t…,fi£E” fi”‘«’u2’~%$?§E,£’%§,§-‘K)g%’-:k’»~.;§”§fi% §””E§$g:r&”fi

8

and 011 my recoliecting that a certain letter of this r1a¥:t1re{

had tbxtwarded to the Regstrar (Vigilance) for examfilatiéij’: ”

and to submit a report and that a report

submitted by the Regstrar (Vigilance) a se§z;u c;::’?

the report; of the Regstrar Vigi1ance.[‘»Vas S1ifl1I}}DI1€d’;i(3.t:}jé V

COIIFL

6. it was opened irl the caf
ccsunsei etc. The re1::;£>z?:t:V V{‘:ourt hail
by Ms Anjana counsel for
respondents the counter
filed on beha}t” nqi”‘ 4 to the main writ
petitien. _ V’ % ‘ A J ‘»

:§31;2_i'<i:<:ti(:I2 on behalf of the respondents 3
v3.I1ci é fliatter before this bench appears to
aicffiording to mass respondents, the prsesenft
Qefifiofiérs have I19 bang: fades in presenting the Writ

$2" majrztaining the petition and that they have

'V V d'eiii§é?at€iy suppressed Certain earlier developments and

%/

mwwrv-wamm wwm m"M!"0nuE\M:hct-ras'\\x|m',9a was wvcm ww-wwwnvm-m

§
particularly {he iéct that this court; had enquired about
the facts of the case from one R .HanumantI1appa, who

had been described as the prosiciont of

residents' welfexra association, who was 1;Hr;é" 'WI'if:_T1E¥(;:tiI.ii3¥1(i§"–..'

in WP No 16910 of 1996 af.__

supporting aflidavit to
was secured before the ootifii' the fllrouggh
the good oifices counsel
appearing for the prostsxii; as this Court
was very the said
'ocoo:'d§1g to respondents 3 and 4,
is the the present writ; pefition and

has beé:1.._;;§iayi§"Lg fraud on this court D.0§ only While

o ;p;if:$o3:?1fii:1gA:V'§VP No 16910 of 3996 but also :11: date and

" =t:1&io.re:i'o1'V{.=£_"&– ._ showiizg S(}I}fl€ importance or gving some

promiiéotioo to the saizé person in getting facts quite

V. fia;t:;1rfé;1ly has Created doubts and suspicion fir; the minds
of {hose respondents about they getting a prayer order or

"justice from the hancis of this court and that is to be the

§"§N.;%§"% €$€§?Ufi'§

wmww vm.ar-wmm van-"tw:I""'twwu"m m&ifi"haVWi$ '9oou"'W"4u§mni' 'k-M5" W6»4""§«%K¥'§§j1'%§W§§*&aW§: -fififl V

10

reason £01′ seeking the matter to be reimsed fitnn part

heard.

8. The mm respondent ~ Ms Prakashamma

present in the court and 011 enquiring,1’1’thE§:i:g:h ”

indicated that she has no objectiofi -.tE(3:?._%t¥1eA.’13c1;3.tte;*i

heard by ttis bench, has :a:e;~%%–s;;ateg§-:;§;ii;;~eM’%1:1;ne
it would be better if the matt;éf&’_T_is éfilvii-‘.’§’»ent to
some other bench, « 2 iV§V§:;’)ondent–
commissiomr of Palike is
not carI’ying in a gmoper

raiaxmer and as ‘hé is of the oxdexs

and diractigns iSsa=1u1€:dVVtj:yAt11iS”‘p%ic:0ur1: and the third and tha

féiiixih 1*§i§p£.:nde.nts to harassment and in this

staid €3§T_ state that it is desirabie that the

. “”-“t£ratter figheard: heibre some ether bench.

.1 .. S2’;-._S Baht}, Rearmed counsei for the petitioners

._t_1_aé;-‘ 1:}i;;t f§’:Asrtk1 a very streng objectien for the matter being

. V Aré:’}:§é;S§:ci, ibr the reason that the matter had been heard by

11

this bench earlier and frivolous and S{3″i}3’I’i.lO1}S 0T’§$_ieg:tions
having been raised by the respondents 3
avoid U13 bench and if the réaquest is
amounts to giving
around fer benches to hear’t1}eir4éCaJ%€s,
healthy development in 3;::*g:)pé;3i”‘–§§L:c2 IV§1iIz1:i}snV;atjon of
justice ané more ve’::” _._fi;¥1t:’ in the
nature of a pubiic a request for
beach on the mere
app1’e1;¢;*;:$iQ1§ of respendents 3
and ~::1:1erit acceptance, on the face
of it gtrozlgly urges for rejecting the

reqégtést far tfansfer. V

– }:fh¢»v44:§e §.;r: of the Registrar {“v’ig’lan<::A”0m4Wfl= %r»’b¢si”‘8:«¥4Ws2’1’

15

16. This writ petition is in the nature of p’t1.E:ii{ij”-ifitgirest

iitigation and wlaenever this court. entegiainfi ‘–%p}1}31:Ec

interest iitigation, the petitioners

bI’iI}g a cause before this C{}1]I’f ?35.I”}:{<€1 i19 t~.p{;rS§i1$»V'v2ho

are neither persens Vhatétgéiééi' {in tmé
iitigation] I101' are par§ox1s'.._fg':;r afi};y"'Apa=:i:sona1 reiief
or benefit, unlike in f3:f'i,'tzrc";1':f;t::;:"fi;1V*1t<_éjf<i%–s-3"'i§::};i"ij_ga%:ion, where the
petitioners in a suit or a

petitioner" »p'e§i?,iGz1,':'V.ciair;r1iz1g reiief for himself or

herseif.

17. Whethefksuch pursue a petjijon or even
1’11; 3. F%s.eexi£:g.Vi2§r s.g§m1drawa1 of the writ petition,

that .i1;sci§’ ~is–,zfic2t__ the criterien far dismissing a ‘public

i11ter”es1§f,2ctiii:i1::e with iaw.

@/

17

the directions ané orders, the Bnmut Baxagalore

Maha-nagara Paiike may act in a to

the detriniem of the fesponéents 3 and

nothing beytmd putting forth :«3;”E:1t§i’:~.*zj1§13t.”‘

28. In 33. acihdressed to the learned

COILIITISEI {qr t31é’~vr;§’spQ:1d£:nf$”‘LV3 and 4, marking capies 01’

which amgl t11¢’i§:1c;x:’b1e Chief Justice, is Concerned,

it’is_.i11;§1’t:. and appears to be an attalnpt is get

“‘~V”*$}1e mafia? 0f the mnsideration by mis particular

” i;ji3:¢:1’1¢:A21, fafffiize reascms best imown to the respendents 3

net on any discemabia iegitimata appreherzsion

18
of bias on the part of one of us, constituting thddjvision

bench.

2 1. Even on our repeated

Ms Pmkashamma has only ”

that the orders and ‘may
misused or abtzsoda ‘co;111.i1ié;s’ionc;:§r, Bruhut
Bangalore Mananagéro :>a1i:<¢ demment and
therefore s1j1..€'« shouid go before

some othcéf 'Lf:–né:i'1§'«.._ 9

22. __ it is the duty of this court to

ensure that Aflofl pubiic acts in a highhanded
nprzarmer oothat iazfii is oot taken into their own hands

every a(§I:ion: Is. _:o be in ful} consonance with the law

and ii”; c”:or1oo1iQ(1f:Ct: iés7it13 fa:°ir–p1ay and in compliance with
:77 _ tho pzénoipleoof xi’1a'{}}I’3i justice.

rE1aci oariier ijtlciicated in the order dated 4»1};~

that the Commissioner, Bruhut Bangaiore

19

Mahanagara Palike should submit a report indieatfmg the
pcssibiiities for rehabilitatien cf third and tile fourth
respondents and ether like persons, if :beC:;mes
inevitabie that they may have to
premises if their éweiiing {Be n
amenity area. V — 2 V x

I24. On this aspect, Ms eouneel
for the respondents 4″,’ appeam
to be some measurement

of ea*,rm :é;fi{e€}~.1br 8 and the subject matter of
the etfifier orfiy the area covered by

parVi~:,_ it e’u11g3t7._g;d expanded in the present writ

11; is 1’16?2:”materiai for the present purpose, as to

‘What iihe”_jeivie amenity area bandied over by the then

c::y% im~pife§:einen£ must board in favour of the Bangalore

City eefpczrafien, as it) in what marmer that should have

” utiiizevzi er maintained is a mateer on record and does

V% V. ._..;§1ot admit any controversy abeut it. The only issue in

2 1
Okalipura, Lakshmanagar Area. Eangalore. it is”–.not an

aliotment ofa house property or site itseif.

26. Be that as it may, the question is

civic amenity area which 3if1ad»_,,4b_sf”:t”:1_1 “_e’1?1t1*u’s_te(V¥5 :’forV.._ V

maintaining and admhiisteritlg fo1′.’a
civic body – the then city —- can
be diverted by the or even
by the state governntentes property owned

by either 1;g'”ei*”fi’1″e state govemment.

27. it iS:’-.§1 i11 iaw that a trustee

Cannot appropriateVe1f”i3;i1:?§;;1§i4o;3riate a property held in

{met £'(::1*.%l:t’;1’V1ct~ bez1ei:§t…ot’ beneiiciaxy and the position of

the is not any difierent from that of a

to the civic amenity area for the benefit

ofthe re’3id7:§:;té’,4′.oI’tI1e ioeaiity, to maizltain it as a park, to

izp — ._g:o£:£st111c:tion to have a maternity home, chiid

eentre and ward ofiioe. It is the duty of the

Atfiahanagara pahke to maintain. the civic amenity site as

%/

W-WWW” we *»’wWw’wWnWAwwW1s Hmmw Vwmmwwi we” Wi§W»’a§’§Ti MK/”Z.-*’§€L§ §’fi§WW £..”€..3wfiN

24

in a matter such as the present one, which is esse11t§aH5; at
public interest litigation, private interest égyen
much importance or promizzenee not cane
for such purpose. Apart from
has been specifically directecikte 4}f)(:.fl§:”i’:-:te<1

by a special order by .;)j11ei:ice and
therefore the Bench,
theugh it €3()1}I(i_ have..bee§J 1eeI1er bench of this

court.

3:2. H0we\.?e%£’,’~.ii1 vim t.he “§esire and sentiment
expressed 4. my V .._brother Justice Narayana

Swamy, Vthat W:”~i.1it1;sA”§:d””feeuse himself from further

éhiswzase Hfe1″‘”‘i:%1e reasen that the respondente 3

W’ mm. VV. W >.~.x’mywA’£ $

a letter to their counsel 1:0 make a

L”-V”eu¥3n1:iS$ie1},~ recffiesting the ehange ef bench and the

” i;jiee;1’*n:ed eezxfisel for respondents 3 and 4 has else filed :3.

:1′}e1:1{; fe {hie effect befere this court expressing

neafiilrfi-filensien foe €O1{11Z§I1’l_£i1f}g the matter befere this bench,

?%

27
binds on the commissioner and the comnzissionéé’-iTs éuty

bound £0 obey that order.

35. However, in the meanwhi}e,._ “wig.
directed H) submit a
rehabilitation of the rcspénéients ot§1ers,
they are ultimately 17.9 ‘fi’a<iz'11~ present:
position, if rule ot'1ax;*' provisions of the
Karnataka and the Rules and
Regmatiohfi to be implemenmd.

36. 1éaI’:1ed counsei appearing for
the sécefid Mahanagara Palike

like V’ plaice an aftiéavit sworn to by the

» Bruhui: Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,

” ‘i§ici1ic$.i:ii9ig;.. action taken so far and the afiidavit is

pL’;{::r§d’V.bc::””::%;:Vvr€ the court fer such purpose;

For want of time, While it may not be passibie to

V. .. the c0r1i.:e:;’1ts of the aifidavit teday itself, the

Q/A

ww.wwww¥sm/”‘w¥AmU’V\ mmwm W-wmww xzwm” mmm,wm§Mm,m mn;;_zs;:~:i; mwmfig my ‘§- yggfigg figfififg”

28

Commissioner is directad #1:} submit 3 {Luther about

the comparative position mi’ the propesed _ Lu1x1its

located at the housizlg board houses a:..£{i_ii’ga1;é:;j’api;ifa,.. :d’:.__

be given in piace cf the ]’Z)I’€S€I”l’i;_ buildings 0Cc2.1p}it3i{)1.’1 of’ 4]

respendents 8 and 4 and?

they are to be displaced to whether
the proposed dweHi1i::§:”u::;i:t%s wéyflon par with
me faciiities that existing dweiling
units new % 0

38. The in Aiéfiditgate if respondents 8

and 4 a<I;(:i -.Q"t:l'".:.<=:V1° . will have to incur any

additiona§_V{:xp<§21ri_ituré f{;15£§i_1ch purpose, as it is highly

I-'§iiésirAab'}é;' thatths: féépcindents 3 and 4 and other 31

pei~:§(i:3€ig_$'V 6i" i).ow 0<:cupam:$ in a stnlcture buiit by

fu;':é.'€'_§n a housing caoperative and beiengng

" i:jt+3_ Vwgakef' 'vfK;3Cti0I1S of society and they shouicl not be

with any further cast or expenditure.

¢/

k~:#'nlli'0bm"'"M Mwwwa mwwmn war" mmnwmwmmmm EWEWW mwammzfi WE'" fifififiwfifiifififififi §"'§%?§;§»W @§.:§3§.J§§N'

29

39. Theugil Ms Prakashamxna [third

V-my passionately plead that thiré

respondents and other 31

to remain in their Presentfilace wOBl’dA, Iliéitz ‘t::V
disturbed, that is a to “”<:lé(:icxi'ef:ci on the
appiication of the raiévant 1;.he:.f'a1ct fiitiiation and is

not a matter which I {gr Q?-ders in any othsr

way other t,]§']"Ei'.f'l'::::,§31V .'–1.<5.'–:'<)23'(:i;-'aix1c'é': .wifr1v–éaW, which is the duty

of the court.

40. The ‘s~.~¢p*oj:-to (Vigilance), submitteci ix:

the c01″zt§:xt <:}vf'Lflie'v3et';tic3rA 11-11-2009 fmm 3"' and 43*

addrés' to their couase} Ms Anjana

_ Vczypj; of which had been sent to my

%$ %»A¢1~;afi1*:;:5ei~ 3,I';{i 1_:3i;1 which : had ciirectted the Regstrar
submit a. report, is hereby directed to make
€335. Regsuy is directed to keep 1:116 report:

V %%~§:§i};;::iit:ee1 by the Regstrar (Vigiiance) along with the

Q/,

' ~ ..m3cords of this case;

we-s'”‘<& aa!:rA¥*6«m"!I£aI "*nurW¢1I'Mw|W.ifi

30

43. List {hr-2 matter next Week beibre the ~

constituted by the Chiefdustice. ._