Sira Town Development and Revolution Forum vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Others

D.H. Waghela, C.J.—This petition is filed in the name of Sira Town Development & Revolution Forum represented by its convenor Sri. S.V. Kantharaj, inter alia against the Wakf Board, Sira, Jamia Masjid, Sira Town and other government authorities. The petitioner is stated to be consisting of several members who are all educated citizens and it has, as one of its objects seeing to it that public property is properly utilized and it is not misused. It is stated in paragraph - 2 of the petition that members of the Forum keep watch on every public property, monuments etc., in and around Sira Town, so as to see that there is no misuse of such properties affecting public interest and cause. The petition and prayers, in effect, call into question orders of the official respondents at Annexures-L, H and J, made by respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 7. They are based on the averments that respondent No. 3 Wakf Board was granted land bearing old Sy. No. 49 and Re-Sy. No. 267 at Kalkote village in Sira Taluk, way back in the year 1997. Although the order of grant did not stipulate any condition on respondent No. 3, it was granted for public purpose upon which respondent No. 4 is stated to be constructing commercial shops, according to the petitioner. Such construction is alleged to be illegal on various counts. It is also alleged that there are irregularities in managing the huge extent of land granted to respondent No. 3. In such circumstances, the petitioner forum vide its letter dated 05.03.2009 informed respondent No. 2 that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were misusing the lands. Thereafter, the petitioner had also filed the petition being WP No. 12934/2009 wherein, an order to decide the representation of the petitioner is stated to have been made on 07.05.2009. Admittedly thereafter, by order dated 01.08.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, conditional permission sought for opening of 112 shops already constructed in the aforesaid land for commercial purpose has been granted. It is thereafter that the petitioner have rushed to this Court to obtain an interim order of maintaining status quo in respect of the aforesaid construction.

It was seen from the record and there is no dispute about the fact that in the same way as the land granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, land was also granted in favour of Durgamma Temple Trust of Gavi Anjaneya Swamy Temple by the same order dated 23.04.1997 and admittedly, the commercial construction put up on that land has not been agitated by the petitioner in public interest to call into question the use or construction on that part of the land. As recorded in the order dated 28.10.1010 of this Court in WP No. 32786/2009, respondent No. 4 herein was required to approach this Court on account of the no objection certificate issued in their favour, being withdrawn. The Court recorded in that order, that respondent No. 4 herein was prevented from opening the shops till Katha was made in their name and constructions were regularized. The Court specifically observed in the order:

However, having regard to the ownership of the land by the petitioner - Masjid, the construction made by them, the authorities permitting similarly situated another religious institution to open the shops, it is necessary to issue a direction to respondent No. 2 to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.

With this background and after reference to several earlier orders and letters of the Government, the conditional permission dated 01.08.2013 appears to have been granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

For challenging the construction and use of the premises by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the successive orders including the latest order dated 01.08.2013 as aforesaid, the petitioner have relied upon not only the original order dated 23.04.1997 granting land to the respondents, as well as Durgamma Temple Trust of Gavi Anjaneyaswamy Temple, but the objection raised by the convenor of the petitioner by letter dated 05.03.2009. That letter annexed to the petition as Annexure-B is in Kannada and admittedly its translation is incorrect. It was conceded during the course of unnecessary arguments mixed with apologies, that addition of the words "by Idga (Wakf Board)" was incorrect and misleading, insofar as the representation dated 05.03.2009 in its original vernacular form was meant to protest against commercial shops being built by respondent Wakf Board, as well as Anjaneya Swamy Temple. Upon further queries, it was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was pursued only against the present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in various proceedings including in a civil suit being O.S. No. 92/2013, so as to obtain an injunction against utilization of 112 commercial shops which have come up at the site since more than three years. The interim order for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from opening of the shops constructed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein has been dismissed on 17.08.2013 and it is thereafter that the present petition has been filed with prayer for interim injunction which infact was granted on 26.08.2013 and ordered to continue until further orders by order dated 24.09.2013. The respondent No. 4 has then filed I.A. No. 1/2013 for vacating stay. Another application I.A. No. 2/2013 is filed to vacate the interim relief by respondent - State.

Upon hearing the petition for final disposal, it was clear from the admitted facts and the cause of action adopted by the petitioner, that rather than any public interest, the petitioner were bent upon seeing to it that the shops constructed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 could not be utilized and hurdles were strewn in the way of other parties who might have rented the premises even as it has come on record that many of the shops are already allotted for commercial purpose, to members of different communities. The petitioner has partly succeeded in bringing about confusion and dispute in the matter of utilization of the premises. Therefore, in short, the petition is inspired by an oblique motive and a personal and communal instinct rather than bona fide public interest of the community. Although, the modification of the document annexed at Annexure-B and relied upon by the petitioner is stated to be bona fide mistake of the person who translated the document, it is apparent that the words which were not in the original vernacular version could not have been added by a translator and in any case the petitioner as well as the learned advocate of the petitioner must own the responsibilities of placing before the Court a document and relying upon it for argument, which admittedly carried serious error, mistake or plain mischief. It is time and again held by the Supreme Court that persons who move the High Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to approach the Court not only with clean hands but clean heart, which are found to be lacking in the present proceeding. Under the circumstances, this Court would not be justified in going into the legality or otherwise of the order dated 01.08.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, at the instance of and on the basis of the objections and arguments of the petitioner. That order is otherwise defended by the learned Additional Government Advocate and no legal ground with reference to any legal provision or precedent is even canvassed for the petitioner to hold it to be illegal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as a motivated attempt at abuse of process of this Court, with cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner within 15 days, to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in equal proportion. The interim applications made in the petition no longer survive and they are accordingly dismissed.