Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be exercised in cases requiring an inquiry into facts, which should be tried by a competent civil court.

Vineet Kothari, J.

Mr. Shashi Kumar G.V., Adv. for Petitioner.

1. By this writ petition, the following prayers are made;

"(a) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take action against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in pursuance of complaint dated 11.04.2016 at Annexure-A.

(b) Issue any other writ or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the site photographs produced by him vide Annexure-J series, tried to submit before the Court that the portion on the ground floor with the window with iron grills, which prima facie appears to 10 to 12 feet above the road level, was the ground floor and the basement area for which sanction was given by the respondent-authorities only as a parking area has been mis-used by the Builder and Developer, who have allowed it to be used for commercial purposes.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be prima facie correct as the basement of any property would generally be under the ground or beneath the road level and, therefore, whether the utilization of the particular area contrary to the sanctioned plan is done or not is a question of fact to be determined either by the competent authority of the respondent-Municipal Council or by the competent Civil Court, where the facts are established with the help of appropriate relevant evidence proved in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code.

4. Writ jurisdiction is not meant to be exercised in such cases. Recently, this Court in the case of V. Dhamodaran and others versus Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and others in WP Nos. 3880-3881/2014 decided on 28.11.2016 has held that these type of writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below for ready reference;

"5. Upon a preliminary hearing of the matter by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petitions are not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed at this stage itself and there is no reason to decide the aforesaid large number of issues raised herein.

6. The case in hand is obviously a case requiring an inquiry into the facts and rather a complex cob-web of facts where the Respondent - Builders are alleged to have raised constructions in violation of the various statutory provisions of different enactments and certain registered documents like Relinquishment Deed in favour of BBMP is also sought to be quashed, which is plain and simple a cause which can be tried only by a Competent Civil Court in a properly instituted Civil Suit and not in Writ Jurisdiction.

7. Firstly, the petitioner - complainants who are before this Court ought to have brought such violations to the notice of the concerned public bodies themselves and if they have done so, it could be only expected of the public bodies to take action according to law and pass appropriate reasoned orders on such representations/complaints. If such action or orders caused any grievance to any person, there are remedies provided in the relevant laws themselves where such grievances can be ventilated. The very fact that two of such appeals against the action initiated by the Respondent - BBMP are pending before the competent Tribunal which can go into such facts, the present petitioners instead of seeking their impleadment before the Tribunal in the matter to place their complaint and evidence before the said Tribunal, have approached this Court by way of present three writ petitions, scattering the litigation to more than one Forum, which is not permissible and desirable. This is not only likely to result in conflicting orders to be passed by two Forums, but the case in hand obviously as indicated above, requires a deep scrutiny in the whole lot of facts of the case which are required to be proved as p