Point of law : Implead of parties - Necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding

ORDER :

The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question an order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal declining to permit the petitioner to get into the proceedings as party respondent.

2. The petition is filed on the ground that the proceedings initiated against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 emanated from a complaint that is lodged by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said complaint notices under Section 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('KMC Act' for short) are issued to the BBMP. These notices are called in question by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. It is in these proceedings, the petitioner files an application seeking his impleadment into the proceedings on the ground that he is the complainant. The Tribunal rejects the same, by the impugned order, on the ground that he is not a proper and necessary party to these proceeding. It is this order that is called in question in these proceedings.

3. Heard Sri.S.Sriranga, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.T.M.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

4. The issue with regard to whether a complainant is entitled to be a party to the proceedings instituted pursuant to a complaint registered by the complainant albeit the proceedings being between the owner of the property and the BBMP need not detain this Court for long or delve deeper into the matter, as judgments of the Apex Court, the Division Bench and the Coordinate benches of this Court in plethora of cases have considered the issue and ordered that the complainant at whose instance the entire proceedings have emanated against an owner of the property is entitled to be a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal.

5. The Division Bench in the case of SHANTESH GUREDDY AND ANOTHER VS. COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE AND OTHERS, ILR 2017 KAR 1583 has held as follows:

"3. The litigation has a chequered history. Adjacent owners residing in Cunningham Cross Road, Bengaluru, are fighting to establish their respective rights concerning a construction put up in premises bearing No.40, Cunningham Cross Road.

4. It is an admitted position that the residents of Cunningham Cross Road have formed a Forum known as ‘Citizens Forum for Safe Environment,’ (hereinafter referred to as the Forum, for short) of which they are the members.

5. The owner of the premises bearing No.40, Cunningham Cross Road, allegedly made a construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan.

6. The Forum and some of its members filed a complaint before the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.

7. Our understanding of the Forum is that it is nothing but an assured name by a group of persons, who have assembled themselves under one umbrella.

8. However, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, asking responsible for the violation, to answer the person Ultimately, on September 17, 2014, an order of demolition of the unauthorized structure was passed.

9. The person responsible for the alleged unauthorized construction preferred an appeal and obtained an order of status quo.

10. An application is filed by the Forum and some of its members seeking for their additions as parties in the appeal. The Tribunal rejected their application, but the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the application.

11. Mr.D.L.N.Rao and Mr.Ananth Mandagi, learned senior advocates appearing for the appellants, strenuously argues that the application filed by the Forum was not maintainable as it is not a body corporate. It is submitted that an unregistered body cannot maintain a writ petition.

12. Secondly, it is submitted, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDANMAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 that complainants are not necessary and proper pa