Skip to content


Ganapati Laxman Shet Vs. Sitabai Kom Ramdas Vernekar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Kant29; ILR1976KAR1415; 1976(2)KarLJ208
ActsConstitution of India - Article 227
AppellantGanapati Laxman Shet
RespondentSitabai Kom Ramdas Vernekar
Advocates:S.G. Bhat, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness, the court must exercise its discretionary power under article 226 of the constitution of india. the said power under article 226 shall be exercised with the great caution and also in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. on facts, held, it is clear from the undisputed facts that the leasing of the factory on lease, rehabilitated, operate and transfer scheme is in the interest of the farmers, workers and employees, financial institutions and the state government and also in the public interest. the state government has taken a decision, keeping in view the larger public interest and hence the decision taken by the state government to lease the sugar factory on lrot basis is just and proper. ..........of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961. hence, two preliminary issues were framed by the learned munsiff in this behalf on which findings recorded against the order was challenged of the rent control act, 1961, before the district judge at karwar. the learned district judge has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned munsiff. it is in these circumstances that the orders of the lower courts have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition under article 227 of the constitution.3-a. the petitioner has invoked the superintending jurisdiction of this court under article 227 which jurisdiction of this court which is exercised under section 115, c. p. copde and similar provisions conferring revisional powers on this court. no specific direction is sought against the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Though the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, on the request of Sri S. G. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, he has been permitted to amend the writ petition by deleting Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, it is clear in this writ petition that the petitioner has invoked only the provisions of Article 227.

2. This writ petition has not been registered by the Office on the ground that the Munsiff and the District Judge of Karwar have not been impleaded as respondents, who are necessary parties to the writ petition.

3. In the application filed by the respondent under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for eviction of the petitioner before the Munsiff at Karwar, the petitioner raised the contention to the effect that he is not a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, but that he is an agricultural tenant governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Hence, two preliminary issues were framed by the learned Munsiff in this behalf on which findings recorded against the order was challenged of the Rent Control Act, 1961, before the District Judge at Karwar. The learned District Judge has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Munsiff. It is in these circumstances that the orders of the lower Courts have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3-A. The petitioner has invoked the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 which jurisdiction of this Court which is exercised under Section 115, C. P. Copde and similar provisions conferring revisional powers on this Court. No specific direction is sought against the Munsiff and District Judge, in this case. No allegations of bias or mala fides have been made against the Munsiff or the District Judge.

4. In Muhammad Enamual Haque v. Muhammad J. Hossain, (Civil Appeal No. 985/63 decided on 8-5-1964) (SC) the Supreme Court has held that to a proceeding invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution the Tribunal is not a necessary party, and the failure to implead the Tribunal whose or der is challenged under Article 227, does not render the Writ Petition defective.

5. Following the said decision, I have to hold that the Munsiff and the District Judge are not necessary parties to the writ petition. Hence, the office objections are overruled and it is directed to register the writ petition.

6. Petition allowed.


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