Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)
B.V. NAGARATHNA, BELLUNKE A.S., JJ.
Sri K. Areef Hafeez S/o. K.A. Hafeez – Appellant
Versus
Sri Nazeer Ahmed Makbul Ahmad Nadaf – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos.100376-377 of 2017 (GM-CC)
Decided on : 05-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI M.S. BHAGWAT ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT. VEENA HEGDE, Adv
Headnote:
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 226 - Karnataka Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.,) Act, 1990 - Sections 4A and 4-B - Relief sought for in the petition is to set aside - No locus standi to maintain the writ petition - Court feels that the petitioner has no locus standi since there is no relief sought for himself, he also cannot seek such relief against his sister. Sister, though she is an aggrieved party, has not preferred any petition. By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, any person, who proves that his/her constitutional or statutory rights have been infringed, deprived or denied, could approach this Court under the said extraordinary jurisdiction - Here aggrieved person has not appeared and the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. He cannot seek such relief against a person, who has not been seen and who has not appeared before the Court or not paid any court fee. A petition is to be supported by a verifying affidavit claiming that he has not suppressed any fact and has not withheld any materials. As long as that affidavit is not there, it is not appropriate for the petitioner to seek such relief - Held, Locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) ‘person aggrieved’; (ii) ‘stranger’; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them - They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold - first category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of ‘persons aggrieved’. In the grey outer-circle the. bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Though these writ appeals are listed for preliminary hearing, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented by learned Additional Government Advocate.
3. The legality and correctness of interim order dated 22.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.108822/2016 (GM-CC) has been assailed in these appeals.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. As already noted, respondent No.1/writ petitioner is served and unrepresented.
5. The controversy in these appeals is in a very narrow compass. The appellants herein are respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the writ petition. They are aggrieved by the impleadment of the writ petitioner’s sister in the writ petition as a party-respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that when IA No.1 of 2017 was filed by the writ petitioner, on 22.02.2017, learned Single Judge rejected the said IA.
But, one month thereafter, on 22.03.2017, even in the absence of there being any other application and on rejecting the earlier application seeking impleadment, learned Single Judge permitted the impleadment of writ petitioner’s sister as a party-respondent in the writ petition that too after opining that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as no relief was sought by him for himself in the writ petition. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
“6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, this Court feels that the petitioner has no locus standi since there is no relief sought for himself, he also cannot seek such relief against his sister. Sister, though she is an aggrieved party, has not preferred any petition. By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, any person, who proves that his/her constitutional or statutory rights have been infringed, deprived or denied, could approach this Court under the said extraordinary jurisdiction. Here the aggrieved person has not appeared and the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. He cannot seek such relief against a person, who has not been seen and who has not appeared before the Court or not paid any court fee. A petition is to be supported by a verifying affidavit claiming that he has not suppressed any fact and has not withheld any materials. As long as that affidavit is not there, it is not appropriate for the petitioner to seek such relief. When this is the position of law and fact, this court declines to exercise its extraordinary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As already stated, the petitioner is not a right person, since no relief is sought in his favour. The relief sought for in the petition is to set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner. That itself is not a relief. Relief should have been to select himself or his sister, in case the selection of the respondents No.3 and 4 is set aside. I find no such pleading is made to that effect in the petition and no materials are produced along with the petition papers. Though on this technical ground the petition could have been rejected, I feel that when some materials are produced before this Court and this Court is satisfied, the same is to be gone into in the ends of justice. I also find that since some constitutional issues are involved, it is this Court which has got competence to examine those issues. Under these circumstances, by invoking extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court feels it fit to direct the petitioner to bring his sister on record as a party respondent and after appearance of the party, further hearing is to be taken place.
In that view of the matter, petitioner is directed to implead his sister as party respondent. Accordingly it is ordered.
Released from part heard.”
7. Learned counsel for th
