IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUs3:..2§;:j9%l'wV;A ~
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Mr. msm;gm~ ;I_,
WRIT PEITFFION No. 12519 dmgoo9(cm:MA1
BETWEEN:
MI/s.Chitra Ex1)jbitorS;..._' « :4 V
No.9/1, Shankar1\&ar3:e£,_' "
E.S.Lane, Chickpet Cross,
Bangalo:-e--56o a53.
Representmi if V "
1. Sri " V
s/up late *I)}\_fe1ii5:aiah V'
Agecgi abc11t'89 --- ' '
. Sri D.V'..JayaiL'i;.§fiI1«'a:':;i?r$3.sad,
S}-'0 D.V;I?aLti2r3:am;
Age: 43 ymra,
A "and 2 a.té"x*esidi11g at
' ~No.52£2,*N€.w Diagonal Road,
'g 011.
. NV"areI3 dra Singh,
S/o'vI_a"te Balaji Singh,
" » 'Aged about 63 years.
B.N.Mahendralmmar Singh,
' ~» S/o Narendra Singh,
Aged about 33 years.
Both partners 3 and 4 are
R/an Padmalaya No.4, 2nd Cross,
Madhav Nagar,
Bangalore-560 om. ...PE1Tr10Nj::Rs
(Sri K.Ra.ghavendra Rae, Adv.) % M
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
& District Magistrate,
Chikaballapura,
Chlkaballapum Dist.
2. N.Sr1nivas, _
S/o Late C.R.Na1'ay2"maswamy,-- _
Aged about 48 years",-- ~ r V 1
R/aPateI Street, '~ _ f , _ _
Siddlagahatta'TowI1;"' " 7
C1nkabaflaTpiKf§{_'DiSt5 3; .. .._.';R._ESPONDENTS
(Sri H.K.Ba%§e{a;"*:é1};i§{3€}I§fvf&}1~--..i§1V§'*Sx~i'Nanjunda Reddy,
Sr.cou11v$eV1WfcrzjVS1'i:.;§§.VSoma$hckaga.3Reddy, Adv. for R2 )
This'W.? is'1?ik=.xi'e»11r1mf.ir:_ue, the proceedings in case
No.Mg%£'}(ENT)GR28/ 8698 1, vide Annexum«~A, allow this
. * V. '_ ..... ..
been heard and reserved for
V' , In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a
" ef prohibition. The core question which falls for
» eeonsideration is, in what e1rcum' stances, a writ of
Gyders, 0%: for pmnouricement of order this day,
the the following:
ORDER
Pmmbifien can be imam.
3
2. The facts germane fer the dispose} of the writ
petition are as under:
The petitioners claim to be the registered
in occupation and possession of Valli ~
fixtures. The said theatre is situated’ K 2
Town. They are running :viIz ‘t3’n_:*e
M/s.enin-a Exhibitors, mg. Q;
It is not in dispute gesheendenti was a
lessee under the “I191: in dispute
that the lease’ peliod ;¢;§1′;f1¢1V:I.1o: éi;~..¢1:d.en 02.11.2002.
Since the .the petitioners have filed a
suit in C)’.S_.Ne. the competent Civil
V for ejeCtmentV ‘same is pending adjudication. In
the second respondent has filed a suit
fer an alleged agmment to sell stated to
V . have”‘bee.t:1.e’;{eeuted by the first mtzitiener i.e., one of the
.01′ the farm. The said suit is pending
ail-jedieafion. The second respondent, it appears, had
T ” a suit in O.S.No.267/O2 seeking relief of injunction
restraining the petitioners from dismssessirzg him
9′
E
witheut due process of law. Incidentally the subject fl
the licence. The seine was questioned by the petitioeers
by Way of an appeal in appeal No. 114/08 A4
Appellate Txiburxai. The appeai was aeeepied *
Tribunal and the order of the fizstifat’ ” V’
naught. A funding is recorded by
proceedings to the efiect 1113 éecqm:
was not in Iawful posseseion’;”‘ie,ese31gch aé1s’,* oriee the
tenancy is terminated, would be
a tenant at passed by
the TIibuna3;,4’Vtif..e. a Writ petition
before /08. This Court
deeiined ta writ mtition. The second
respezgdezgt, ‘by .the order of the learned single
éyuege, r{1;»:§;1 ei1._appea1 in W.A.Ne.2299/08. ineidentaliy,
the “véi’it_ was dismissed as withdrawn on the
V V _ moufid o:fit’heving become infructueus.
‘ . Few other relevant facts which are requireci te
‘ noted are certain proceedings which have taken
Kplaee during the mndency of the Writ appeal. When the
writ appeal was iisted on 26.12.2008, a request was
made by the second respondent in the writ appeal that fl
/J
deteiminafion is demonstrably wrong. Except in
proceedings by way of appeal, the parties
judgnem; are estopped from questioning it. __ _
one another, they may neither puotfsue the .. t»
action again, nor may they
which was an essential element ,
case on hand, as observed :t«1uthority
found that the appHeeti.t of the
cinema t!”1eat:ne.~. vBut.~hes7f sought to be
reversed by a question
was inter alia, contending
that oer:-es the has expired and notice of
teragsiiastion issued, the tenancy would be at
which case respondent-2 will not fall into
the person who is in lawful possession
eiann’ renewal of the licence. Indeed, this
H ‘A questioii fell for eonsideration before the Tribunal. The
–‘ having regard to the law laid down by the Apex
in the ease of MC. Chockalingam and others vs.
Mazxiekavasam and others, A.I.R. 1972 SC 104, with
reference to lawful possession has observed that
14
of a lawful title. There is little difference between him
and a trespasser. A tenancy at sufiemnce doesT*”‘r1ot
create the relationship of landlord and tena.g1t!”
expression “holcrling over” is used in K
retaining possession. A
between a tenant eontinuigzgé’ in
detemxination of the lease, the
Iandlord and a ‘t11eV’AAlsVIv1d1ord’s
consent. The former is over or a
tenant: at he 3:)’ K ‘<1'-it: is to be noticed
that of fime came to an end on
2.11.2O(} 2,_ '' Inside to be noficed that the
a suit for ejectment and the
is adjudication.
V noticed that the requirement of the
_ aPP1iean:§ 3:0 be found at rule 6 of the Karnataka
‘ H {1?Q1flatiens) Rules, 1971, which would relate
“ov£%r1ers11ip or possession to site, building or
T equipment. The said rule would contemplate that if the
3 appiieant for license is the owner of the site, building or
equipment he shafl produce mfere the Iixtrensirxg #
Tribmxal are tacitly confirmed. A writ appeal was,j~a1so
flied. It is no doubt true, in the writ appeal ~
was made by respondent–2 to make an ‘V
mnewal of the licence to the
no doubt true that this ccmft
rcspflndemz to maintain £1116:
competent authority. ‘ it
cannot be said t:hat eermimsd the
‘competent ‘az;:;.d9;pplication and
pass V. eras asked for is
but what is more
sigxificand is, the idé11tef«~._’:_j)1*eg*ess in the writ appeal
Tof an application made to the
respondent-2 started exhibiting
shows that the cyrighai authority
_ wouid net “consider the application of respondent-»2
K ” ‘ .eii;h;er for gant or refusal of licence or even for
the films. Indeed, respondent”? ought to
T have taken the proceedings to its logical end in the writ
dd appeal itself, in as much as, What: was questioned in the
writ appeal was the order passw by the learned single
,;/?/
Judge confirming the order of the ‘I’i*ibunal.._ By
withdrawal of the writ appeal, the findings
the Tribunal stood confirmed. It is no
is open for a litigant to i_n.a.i_ce ‘ ” =-of
applications or even file ciaiiiis ffor’;
getting it rejected. But however, it”wou1ci z-is res’ V L’
judicate and could be coneidered of the
process of the court. me respoxidemz-2
having suflered at as well as
this court; cm; zeatteif on identical and
same grounds, i_mieiii’Licii’Vas’,..iV psossession is held to
be not lawful. A V i
«.13. in the ease of Calcutta
Qfflcer, Companies
4.1.1:. 1961 sc 372 has observed
– -time: ‘
.._V the writ of prohibition or certioreri
not issue against: an executive authority,
”»_the High Courts have power to issue in a fit
.. . case an order pioilibiting an executive
authority from acting without jurisdiction.
When’-3 such action of an executive authority
acting without jurisdiction subjects or is
likely to subiect a person to 131%!
20
on the merits of the proceedings. A writ of pmhiiaiéion
cannot be issued to a court or an inferior
error of law unless the errer makes it K
jurisdiction. A clear disenceiiii
maintained between want: of in
manner in which it is
even there is coram writ of
prohibition wi}I__}.ie to… nibunal
forbidding in excess
of its hand, it: is to be
noticeti e itself the orignai
author-ii:y jiia;i jurisdiction when an
appligeaiiori fleas’ by respondent-2. The said
‘V eras genteel initiaily and the order of the
was set at naught by the subsequent
V V .V The question weuid be Whether the
V’ * Voiignaliauthofity can once again exercise jmisclietion to
–‘ eeiisieier an identical application for an identicxal relief
” “Moi: the maze facts. It would certainly be outside the
jurisdiction to consider the same. it is no doubt; true
/’
that the petitioner filed objections to the appiieatien and %
brought it to the notice of the concerned authorityjthat
such a course can not be adopted, in as mueh—aegtiieii’
matter stood concluded in the earlier As’ i
observed by the Apex Court a A jpi’o}ii.bifio:1
certainly be issued to avoideeboseiiofi
fact that permission was in the
writ appeal does not to
reopen the pandora Of
course, it is the petitioner to
put _ oiéjections and seek for
an orde-vi. be once again a fume
exercise, infas mi;ic1’i.:as,V facts and also having regard
to “eer1ierV”p;roeeeciings which stood terminated in
feVoLii~ «peo’tioner, whether the petitioner can be
§:;é1iei«aié to start the entire exercise again and
~V for one more round of litigation. indeed
K ” is–._oflV;en said there must be a finality to all the
‘ It is to be observed that a litigation must
i’ eome to an end after the highest oourt has concluded
the lie. It is not necessary at this stage for the
22
petitioner to undergo all the agony of another iitigajrion
once again.
15. Having gven my anxious cor1side1f§’V§ii:i.eI’1.:’I ‘
of the View that it would be a case the’
has exercised jurisdiction 63;: eta._v.”ear}ie3:v
Consequently it would be a the
category where the Eeek _ to
entertain the apAplieation..:T’_ meag
Want;
It that the Triburlal or a court
can decide Lever’: but however that by
itself ‘ iii: that the respondent has
eeeide the issue which has aiready been
éieeiiigi in the eariier proceeding.
Coeeequently, I am of the View that the petitioner
to the relief sought for.
Petition is allowed. A writ of prohibition shall issue
‘4 U against respondent-1 in continijing the proceedings
.~*
23
which are pending before him in MAG(ENT)CR28_/8Q-
81, Vida A}:mexure»A. ‘ ‘ ‘T A4
Rule made absolute.