ZEN THE HIGH courer OF KARNATAKA AT sANeg\L§jaE DATED 11415 THE 157" my OF NOVEMBE*§',' PRESENT... THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Moi-:J';1VN:;S H}\NTsA.ANA6OU§§Até" . THE HON'!-ZZLE MR.JUS'fi EE S.A».9«V.B£)1_)_L".!V\}';=1i E?v!a"Vu§VVV k THE HQMBLE NNA ' 1 P- wnttv NOs.32574-32578/2o1o(caM-RES) BETWEE'Ni.4' - M V 1. Di'«:§§1,di¢akarAA""'~-- ---------- _Aged 52 years 2}' A\./énkaAta'fa:.fianappa Aged,j'59. years ss[s3;asG%u~;«:hatt: D.Shekar . "¢.A'g'ed 44 years 4. Shivaraj S.Thangadgi Aged 52 years 5. P.M.Narendra Swamy Aged 57 years All are Members of Legislative Assembly _ A R/at.Karnataka Legislativ"'a__Home Vidhana Soudha Bangalore. ' 3. . "..y,_;._PETITIONERS (By Sri P.P.Rae;; I Sri He4rriant::lra'l'Raj"& A5P.l3a;3gan'a'th, Advs.,) 1. D.N.JAee._yarvajV'u_ V' Chief Whip' = - Ffiljarathiya J'ana_t_ha Party A "Karr§"ata'lka Legislative Assembly ' _"'.(iclh.a'na'Sbudha . -.B_a"r:gaVlQ'_r'e}'V-..~" The Speaker = A. ,K__arn'atal<a Vidhana Sabha .V_Vi't;ihana Soudha Bangalore. 3. C.T.Ravi Member of Legislative Assembly Karnataka Legislative Assembly Vidhana Soudha Bangalore. (By Sri Sathyapai Jain, SeniorV=CoLs-nsei for-. " j Sri M.B.Nargund & Sri Vivevk__S;--Reddy,_--v_Advs.,3 ' For R1, R3 1 g Sri S.Vijaya Shankar, Se-n'~ior Cot:nsei.':--'or", Sri C.Shashikanth, Adv_,_,_"fo_r R2) This Mis_e'.W. isfiiied vseotion 151 of CPC r/w. Articies.,,221:b: the 'Constitution of India, praying to raise additional grounds application as additional groundsleaior1gV""iMtLh--~.,;:t'h'e' grounds raised in main petitionslvlto.sect1relt--he'~~~ends of justice. having been heard, reserved for 12.11.2010, this day MOHAN SH)L'\N'i7_Ai\i;4l'X'C'3AOUEZ)AR, J., made the following:- -3- become necessary to bring on record all the facts and grounds by raising additional grounds. It is contended that no prejudice would be caused to"'--t,he respondents.
3. The respondents have opposv:ed.Vvtl:ie l
application. According to the ‘
explanation put forth cannot be”‘avc’eepteV£”«§V’-
instant application is belated.:._ifrom tl*1e’:date tiling
the writ petitions; izrere not
urged earlier the same is
only ‘would amount to altering
the entire particularly, in the
circurnstances’y;rhe’reA.”.the petitioners had already
. addressed ..their«arguments before the earlier Bench
available pleading. It is further
contendedithat the amendment and raising additional
facts” and grounds cannot be made in a piecemeal
fa.sh;*ion. The contents of the additional grounds
WM
-5-
sought to be urged were also referred before us to
contend that the same cannot be permitted.
4. Having heard the rival contentio2fist,.4 a
perusal of the materials on record tl.fiQat’~_
the sequence relating to the filing of p:e’titio’ns 0
in a hurried manner cannot’–be ignored.”
impugned order is writ
petitions have been filed”0001;}:l0.l’20’1A0*’Vand were
moved for posting .e_’i1n1nVedia_tei§i;V.LIionsidering the
nature of .dfispi1te iand’i’Vrnportant’qt1estions of law and
fact” of the petitioners that
dueto the «race against time, all the facts
could not .n’arrate’d and the relevant grounds could
“iriot:,,,’be “raised;”WiIl have to be accepted as a bona fide
It is no doubt true that the instant
A is filed only on 29.10.2010. In our view,
thavtwalone should not disentitle the petitioners in
it %._seeking to raise the additional grounds since the
prayer in the said application even if accepted by this
V’
Court at this stage would not prejudicefirrlp the
respondents. The respondents in any ev.e~nt_’
filed their objection statement to
petitions which is the position eVc.\nx_as” on”tl1.i__s'”(_1_ay
and as such, it is not a_ case ‘i:nprogving:’upo’i;1 itheiv,
pleading after knowing the:defence.~.i_ it is contended
on behalf of the jithat additional
grounds are raised fill upi’i’the_.t:1_act;n_a’_.pointed out in
the order of whileidisposing of the
WP.Nos.;3’2h’6(j:;33i;.T6’fQ}! But, the fact is that the
said’l'”W’r£ts. uiagflainst a different order
passed ‘by the the parties involved were
differenti.””-Hence, tivzeiiadditional grounds sought to be
_in».the instant case, in any event would have to
order impugned herein and the
in those writ petitions will not aid the
petitioners nor will they prejudice the respondents.
A if the additional grounds are permitted to be
raised at this stage, the respondents would have the
opportunity of adverting to the same in their objection
\~”
statement. On the other hand, all the parties’-would
have the opportunity to put forth all their.pconVte4r1Vtio.ns
by way of pleadings and merely
petitioners would raise certain’ ‘ad.dit.iona.llVgrounds to 7
assail the impugned order,K__th_e sanse “ca’~nn=ot-~_beV
objected to at this stage=.a:s–,evehn .llV’Ol..1l(..’l
be incumbent or1.__the respondents to
justify their action: which are
sought to the grounds
which writ petitions.
” ‘¥.Th.eret’_or_e,_’ we are of the considered
opinion” npthatl made in the instant
application is’ ‘liable to be allowed and the petitioners
. _ l”slhoi’l1:ldV’l’be perniitted to raise the additional grounds
the application. While coming to the
A’afo1je’saidl conclusion, the position of law and the
pp p reasons assigned while disposing of
V’ ‘»–M’isc.W.9995 / 2010 are also taken into consideration.
\j\
Accordingly, Misc.W.No. 1 0529/2010 is
allowed. The additional grounds I to XXXI’I in
the application shall be incorporated.; .é{fte2;
NofL’cfi’the grounds in VVfii~PetkkfiifEQ$§32674–‘fl
32678/2010.
5d,S % \;
