Skip to content


Praveen Kumar Vs. Mangalore City Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 51117 of 2016 (LB-RES)
Judge
AppellantPraveen Kumar
RespondentMangalore City Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner
Excerpt:
.....directions just for askance in these type of cases without allowing even the breathing time to public authorities to do the needful on their own part may result in serious prejudice to the process which the public authority is expected and deserves to be allowed to undertake such cases. 8. this court finds a flood of such writ petitions filed for such apparently innocuous mandamus directions to the public authorities majorly for the municipal councils and corporations and development authorities like bda, bbmp and municipal corporation and councils throughout the state, which not only burdens this court with a flood of such writ petitions of this nature but does not allow the public authorities to function in the smooth manner for considering the representations to be made by such.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Respondents to initiate legal action against the person named vide.., representations at Annexures-E, F and G Dated 14.06.2016, 21.07.2016 respectively within the time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.)

1. Mr.Udaya Prakash M., Adv. for Petitioner The present petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus direction against the respondent- Mangalore City Corporation for prohibiting his neighbour, Sri.Chandrashekar Karkera and his brothers for raising the construction illegally without obtaining proper licence and sanction from the city corporation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that for similar reasons, he had filed O.S.No.250/2002 in the competent Civil Court, which was decreed in his faovur on 30.06.2008, against which the first appeal was preferred by the defendant neighbour Mr.Chandrashekar karkera which came to be partly allowed by the first appellate Court in R.A.No.135/2008 on 28.09.2013, against which the Civil Second Appeal viz., R.S.A.No.363/2014 filed by the present petitioner is pending in this Court.

3. This offshoot litigation has been filed for the limited purpose of seeking a mandamus direction to the respondent-Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation for considering the objections of the present petitioner against the grant of sanction of the licence to the said neighbour-defendant-respondent in the Civil Second Appeal filed by the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that on 14.06.2016, he gave the first representation in this regard to the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation and another representation on 21.07.2016 and had even lodged a police complaint on 04.09.2016.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is constrained to observe that the present litigant even though having certain grievance against the respondent-City Corporation and the concerned neighbour, Mr.Chandrashekar Karkera cannot be permitted to scatter and spread the litigation at various forums by filing various kinds of petitions and complaints for essentially one dispute. Once a particular appeal or petition is pending at the competent forum viz., R.S.A.No.363/14 is pending in the High Court itself, by seeking suitable amendment in the pleadings with the permission of the Court in view of subsequent developments, the petitioner can always seek appropriate relief and remedy at that very forum. Allowing such multiple litigations at the instance of one of the aggrieved party obviously is open to allow conflicting orders and judgments to be rendered by different Courts. Such a practice therefore, deserves to be strongly deprecated and properly checked.

5. Therefore, without entertaining this writ petition, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application in the pending Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure itself seeking the leave of the Court to suitably amend the pleadings and seek such relief if at all he is aggrieved in the matter.

6. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that the mandamus jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be used by the litigant in such a hot haste and casual manner. Once, the petitioner or the litigant has approached the any Government authority by way of representation in the recent past, the litigant should pursue the concerned authority to its logical end.

7. Unless the Court finds an absolute reticence or consistent omission on the part of the public authority in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him and not passing suitable orders on such representations made by the concerned litigant, the Court cannot and should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction directing the public authority to do what he is otherwise also expected in law to do. Such frequent use of this jurisdiction may result in demeaning the very purpose for which this jurisdiction is vested in the Court in exercising extraordinary powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it will be counter productive. The wider the powers, the greater is the circumspection, with which the Court should exercise such jurisdiction. Issuance of mandamus directions just for askance in these type of cases without allowing even the breathing time to public authorities to do the needful on their own part may result in serious prejudice to the process which the public authority is expected and deserves to be allowed to undertake such cases.

8. This Court finds a flood of such writ petitions filed for such apparently innocuous mandamus directions to the public authorities majorly for the municipal councils and Corporations and Development Authorities like BDA, BBMP and Municipal Corporation and Councils throughout the State, which not only burdens this Court with a flood of such writ petitions of this nature but does not allow the public authorities to function in the smooth manner for considering the representations to be made by such litigants in appropriate manner. Such a practice defeats the very purpose for which such authorities exist and therefore, the Court cannot be overzealous to invoke its jurisdiction of this nature in such case and on the other hand, it should be slow in doing the same.

9. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction to the petitioner to either pursue its representation with the concerned authorities of the Municipal Corporation or to seek appropriate remedy in the pending litigation in the form of RSA No.363/2014 before this Court.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //