Writ Appeal Nos. 621-622, 802-804, 789 and 812-815 of 2016 (LB-BMP). Case: Shantesh Gureddi and Ors. Vs The Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)

Case NumberWrit Appeal Nos. 621-622, 802-804, 789 and 812-815 of 2016 (LB-BMP)
CounselFor Appellant: D.L.N. Rao, Senior Counsel and Deshraj, Advocate and For Respondents: V. Sreenidhi, AGA
JudgesSubhro Kamal Mukherjee, C.J. and Budihal R.B., J.
IssueKarnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Section 321(1)
Judgement DateMarch 14, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Karnataka (India)


Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, C.J.

  1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, by the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, they are taken up together for hearing.

  2. These appeals are filed against a common order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by the applicants for addition of parties before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, for brevity) and directing their addition in the appeals before the Tribunal.

  3. The litigation has a chequered history. Adjacent owners residing in Cunningham Cross Road, Bengaluru, are fighting to establish their respective rights concerning a construction put up in premises bearing No. 40, Cunningham Cross Road.

  4. It is an admitted position that the residents of Cunningham Cross Road have formed a Forum known as 'Citizens Forum for Safe Environment/(hereinafter referred to as the Forum, for short) of which they are the members.

  5. The owner of the premises bearing No. 40, Cunningham Cross Road, allegedly made a construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan.

  6. The Forum and some of its members filed a complaint before the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.

  7. Our understanding of the Forum is that it is nothing but an assured name by a group of persons, who have assembled themselves under one umbrella.

  8. However, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, asking the person responsible for the violation, to answer. Ultimately, on September 17, 2014, an order of demolition of the unauthorized structure was passed.

  9. The person responsible for the alleged unauthorized construction preferred an appeal and obtained an order of status quo.

  10. An application is filed by the Forum and some of its members seeking for their additions as parties in the appeal. The Tribunal rejected their application, but the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the application.

  11. Mr. D.L.N. Rao and Mr. Ananth Mandagi, learned senior advocates appearing for the appellants, strenuously argues that the application filed by the Forum was not maintainable as it is not a body corporate. It is submitted that an unregistered body cannot maintain a writ petition.

  12. Secondly, it is submitted, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDANMAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT