Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3233
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N. V. ANJARIA, CJ, M.I. ARUN, J
N. RAJANNA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 23148 of 2023
Litigants must approach the court with clean hands, disclosing all relevant facts; failure to do so constitutes an abuse of process, especially in public interest litigation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - The petitioner, a former MLA, sought to direct the BBMP to implement an order regarding land use for public purposes, alleging that the Indian Gymkhana intended to misuse the land for commercial gain. The court found that the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding a related pending writ petition, constituting an abuse of process. (Paras 5.1, 6.1, 8)
(B) Clean Hands Doctrine - The court emphasized that litigants must approach the court with clean hands, disclosing all relevant facts to avoid misleading the court. (Paras 6.1, 6.3)
(C) Abuse of Process - The court ruled that invoking public interest jurisdiction for private gain is an abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the petition with costs. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed that a public park was being converted into a commercial complex by the Indian Gymkhana, despite prior court orders to maintain it as open space.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioner's actions constituted suppression of material facts and abuse of process.
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the petitioner's claims and the suppression of related legal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s failure to disclose the existence of a related writ petition undermined the integrity of the public interest petition, justifying its dismissal.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.35,000/-.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. L.M. Chidanandayya for learned advocate Mr. K.H. Somasekhara for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Smt. Abhirami S. Pillai for learned advocate Mr. S.H. Prashanth for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. R. Subramanya for respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner in the present public interest petition is a former Member of Legislative Assembly who has projected himself as a social worker and who is also a complainant before the Lokayukta filed against respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana, Bengaluru.
3. The prayers in the petition are to direct respondent No.3-the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to implement the order passed by respondent No.1-the Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of Karnataka, dated 29.09.2022 and to take back the land admeasuring 3 Acres and 13 Guntas out of 4 Acres and 21 Guntas situated at Ward No.79 (old Ward No.85), Cox Town, Millers Road, CTS No.1378.
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was shown as park and playground in the Comprehensive Development Plan and the same was used by the youths and the local public for the purpose of sports and other like activities since last several years. It is stated that the said ground is known as 'Cricket Ground of Cox Town' and that, well-known national level cricket players have practised on this ground. It is stated that even the school children use the ground.
3.2 It is the further case that respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana is not a bona fide Association and the activities of respondent No.4 show that it is not interested in encouraging sports and games. It is stated that despite that, in order to make personal gain, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.3-the BBMP for grant of lease of the said ground. Respondent No.3 granted the lease for five years on 18.06.1968 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and that the said lease was thereafter renewed for a period of 35 years. It is alleged that respondent No.4 now intends to put up commercial complex and has approached the government for grant of permission and that, respondent No.1 granted the permission to put up construction. It is stated that such permission was granted on 02.09.1993 and the plan was sanctioned on 27.10.1993.
3.3 It is averred in the petition that the said permission and the sanctioned plan issued in favour of respondent No.4 was challenged by way of public interest petition, which was Writ Petition No.25594 of 1994, in which the court directed the government and the corporation to keep the land open as playground and open space for the use of public. It is in light of the above facts that the present public interest petition with the prayers as above is filed.
4. In course of the hearing, it was pointed out that respondent No.4-Indian Gymkhana has filed Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023, in which the court has issued notice as per the order dated 10.03.2023 and interim order was granted as under,
"5. Considering the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4116/2003, the operation of impugned Government Order No.NAAE.152.MNG.2014 dated 29.09.2022 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing."
5. Now, it is an admitted position that the present petitioner Mr. N. Rajanna son of late Nanjappa is respondent No.5 in the said Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023.
5.1 Not only that the present public interest petition is filed subsequently, the petitioner has suppressed the factum of the said Writ Petition No.5127 of 2023. It is to be noted that respondent No.5-petitioner herein filed his vakalatnama in the said writ petition on 29.05.2023. He further filed statement of objections in the said writ petition and thereafter filed the present petition on 06.10.2023 styling it as public interest petition.
5.2 The pendency of the writ petition filed by respondent
