Mohankumar. Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[anand byrareddy j.] karnataka local authority (prohibition of defection) act, 1987 - section 3 - petition under-petition submitted by the third respondent before the first respondent - notices issued by the first respondent to the petitioners to answer the allegations made in the petition -petition summarily allowed without holding any enquiry -objections by the petitioners with regard to the competence of the president, karnataka pradesh congress committee to authorize the president, district congress committee to issue a whip - the alleged whip is said to have been issued by the district congress committee president on 2.7.2009 and 4.7.2009 to its elected representatives, individually, directing them that they shall not vote in favour of any no-confidence motion against respondent no.3. -consideration of - held, the question arises whether the direction issued by the president of the district congress committee on the strength of the authorization issued by the president, kpcc can be construed as a direction "issued by the political party" as required under the sub-clause (l)(b) of section 3. from a reading of the authorization issued by the president kpcc, there is no reference to any party resolution on the basis of which such authority to issue a direction or whip was delegated to him, which he has sub-delegated. - further held, from the scheme of the constitution it is apparent that the party functions through committees at all levels. the president of any committee can at best act as the correspondent for the particular committee, unless a power is specifically conferred on him to act for the party. a decision to issue a whip therefore could not have been authorized by the president kpcc acting on his own. - on facts, held, the direction issued much prior to the request of the council members seeking the convening of a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against respondent no.3 is also unnatural and further dilutes the claim that such a direction was duly authorized by the political party. writ petitions are allowed.1. proceedings in the high court in exercise of judicial review of administrative action under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india are not proceedings in the nature of an adversary litigation nor one to determine rights and entitlements of parties to petition, but only for review of action taken by the administrative/statutory authorities.2. all and sundry, any and even,' person who thinks he/she also has some interest in the proceedings cannot jump into high court seeking for impleadment as either co-petitioner or as a respondent on one pretext or other and such is the nature of the present application filed by as many as 14 persons and represented by their general power of attorney holder one krishnappa s/o late muniyappa, aged about 39 years. r/at nagadevanahaili village, kengeri hobli. gnanabharathi post, bangalore south taluk. bangalore - 560 056 seeking for impleadment in the present, writ, petitions figuring as the \5iu applicant as respondents, supported by an affidavit sworn to by the pa holder, pleading that the deponent is conversant with the facts of the case leading to the above writ petitions and the applicants have sought to come on record contending that some of the respondents have colluded together and on the premise that the applicants are absolute owners of the land to an extent of 2 acres of agricultural land in block no 5, old sl no 26,new sl no 106 of nagadevanahalli village, kengeri hobli. bangalore south taluk and like extnt in block no 6, being the land which had been granted in favour of one muniswamy, evidenced by saquvali chit dated 28-5-1962 and claim to have utmost interest in the subject, land and therefore want to come on record etc.3. applicants have not shown any relevance or manner of right they claim or assert in the subject granted land in favour of venkatappo and pedda bovi. the applicants are nothing short of meddlesome interlopers and busybodies and therefore the application, which is, without any rhime or reason and a frivolous one only deserves to be dismissed with commensurate costs.4. even after hearing sri lokesh, learned counsel for the applicants, it is very obvious that the applicants acting through their power of attorney holder are persons who are either set up by one or other persons for their own purposes or persons who are fishing in troubled waters;5. this application is vehemently opposed by the petitioner as well as respondents. objections to the application are filed by petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 and respondents 11(a) to 11(d).6. in any view of the matter, such applications only deserves to be dismissed with deterrent exemplary costs in order to make it clear to such persons who file such application casually and without bona fides in the high court and waste the precious time of the court, that they will have to be prepared for appropriate dessert! therefore the request of the learned counsel for the applicants to dismiss the application as not pressed is rejected, but the application is dismissed on merits. levying exemplary cost of rs25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand only), on the applicants and awarded in favour of the state, but to be remitted to the accounts of the high court legal services committee. bangalore, which amount can be utilized by high court legal services committee to provide legal aid to deserving litigants who cannot afford the cost of litigation before the high court.7. the cost is to be deposited as such within four weeks from today, failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the high court legal services committee. bangalore, against sri krishnappa s/o late muniyappa. aged about 39 years, r/at nagadevanahalli village, kengeri hobli. gnanabharathi post, bangalore south taluk, bangalore - 560 056. pa holder of applicants in the present application, for recovery of the cost, as though it is a decree passed by a civil court.8. list the main petitions on 24-2-2011 for passing orders on other applications and for dictating orders on the main writ petitions, as submissions of all counsel arecomplete.

Judgment:
1. Proceedings in the high court in exercise of judicial review of administrative action under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are not proceedings in the nature of an adversary litigation nor one to determine rights and entitlements of parties to petition, but only for review of action taken by the administrative/statutory authorities.

2. All and sundry, any and even,' person who thinks he/she also has some interest in the proceedings cannot jump into high court seeking for impleadment as either co-petitioner or as a respondent on one pretext or other and such is the nature of the present application filed by as many as 14 persons and represented by their general power of attorney holder one Krishnappa s/o late Muniyappa, aged about 39 years. r/at Nagadevanahaili village, Kengeri hobli. Gnanabharathi post, Bangalore south taluk. Bangalore - 560 056 seeking for impleadment in the present, writ, petitions figuring as the \5IU applicant as respondents, supported by an affidavit sworn to by the PA holder, pleading that the deponent is conversant with the facts of the case leading to the above writ petitions and the applicants have sought to come on record contending that some of the respondents have colluded together and on the premise that the applicants are absolute owners of the land to an extent of 2 acres of agricultural land in Block No 5, Old Sl No 26,new Sl No 106 of Nagadevanahalli village, Kengeri hobli. Bangalore south taluk and like extnt in Block No 6, being the land which had been granted in favour of one Muniswamy, evidenced by saquvali chit dated 28-5-1962 and claim to have utmost interest in the subject, land and therefore want to come on record etc.

3. Applicants have not shown any relevance or manner of right they claim or assert in the subject granted land in favour of Venkatappo and Pedda Bovi. The applicants are nothing short of meddlesome interlopers and busybodies and therefore the application, which is, without any rhime or reason and a frivolous one only deserves to be dismissed with commensurate costs.

4. Even after hearing Sri Lokesh, learned counsel for the applicants, it is very obvious that the applicants acting through their power of attorney holder are persons who are either set up by one or other persons for their own purposes or persons who are fishing in troubled waters;

5. This application is vehemently opposed by the petitioner as well as respondents. Objections to the application are filed by petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 and respondents 11(a) to 11(d).

6. In any view of the matter, such applications only deserves to be dismissed with deterrent exemplary costs in order to make it clear to such persons who file such application casually and without bona fides in the high court and waste the precious time of the court, that they will have to be prepared for appropriate dessert! Therefore the request of the learned counsel for the applicants to dismiss the application as not pressed is rejected, but the application is dismissed on merits. levying exemplary cost of Rs25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only), on the applicants and awarded in favour of the State, but to be remitted to the accounts of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Bangalore, which amount can be utilized by High Court Legal Services Committee to provide legal aid to deserving litigants who cannot afford the cost of litigation before the High Court.

7. The cost is to be deposited as such within four weeks from today, failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Bangalore, against Sri Krishnappa s/o late Muniyappa. aged about 39 years, r/at Nagadevanahalli village, Kengeri hobli. Gnanabharathi post, Bangalore south taluk, Bangalore - 560 056. PA holder of applicants in the present application, for recovery of the cost, as though it is a decree passed by a civil court.

8. List the main petitions on 24-2-2011 for passing orders on other applications and for dictating orders on the main writ petitions, as submissions of all counsel are

complete.