K. Harish Rai v. Mysore Urban Development Authority , (SC) BS198309
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- A.S. Anand, CJI, R. C. Lahoti and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6609 of 2001. Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8375 of 2000. D/d. 21.09.2001.

K. Harish Rai & Ors. - Appellants

Versus

Mysore Urban Development Authority - Respondents

With

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8714 Of 2000

P. Jayram & Ors. - Petitioners

Versus

Pradeep Kumar & Ors. - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Demolition of unauthorised constructions - Interim order at admission stage directing Urban Development Authority to ensure that no unauthorized construction takes place - Appellants impleaded as respondents 19 to 40 on their applications - Order of stay of demolition of structure during pendency of proceedings - Allegation of impleaded appellants that order of demolition was passed by High Court without affording them an opportunity - Impleaded respondents directed to granted an opportunity by High Court to file their counters and response to application for grant of interim relief.

[Para ]

ORDER

R.C. Lahoti, J. - No orders on I.A. 2.

2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition.

3. The controversy before us lies in a rather limited sphere. Writ Petition No. 23429 of 1998 was filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar & Ors. seeking a direction from the High Court to respondent No. 1 - Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter "MUDA"), to take immediate steps to prevent all unauthorised constructions which were allegedly going on in different parts of Survey No. 1, Vijayashreepura, Mysore Kasaba. The writ petition had been filed as a public interest litigation.

4. We need not detain ourselves to reproduce the facts as alleged in the petition. We find that the writ petition was pending at the stage of admission when an interim order came to be made on 6th August, 1998 directing MUDA to ensure that no unauthorised construction takes place in Survey No.1 Vijayashreepura, Mysore Kasaba extension. While the matters rested thus, the appellants (respondent Nos. 19-40 in the writ petition) filed an application seeking to implead themselves as respondents.

5. It was the case of the appellants that they have purchased lands and raised constructions in the concerned area, which according to them, had been regularised and any adverse order made concerning those constructions was likely to affect them.

6. Application for impleadment was allowed and appellants were impleaded as respondent Nos. 19 to 40. The record is silent as to whether after impleadment the appellants were given any opportunity to file their objections to the application for interim relief as also counter to the writ petition but by the impugned order dated 10th April, 2000, the Division Bench of the High Court issued certain directions in that petition. Inter alia, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka was directed to appoint a Special Officer to take immediate charge of the affairs of MUDA and see that "immediate action is taken to stop further unauthorised constructions already put up and not to give any electricity connection or water connection to such unauthorised constructions." The Karnataka Electricity Board was also directed to book all the cases of illegal tapping immediately and start prosecution besides collecting the amount. The Bench directed the Electricity Board to file an affidavit with regard to the action taken pursuant to the directions of the High Court by the next date.

7. The appellants, thereupon, filed this appeal by special leave, putting in issue the impugned interim order. It was alleged on behalf of the appellants that the High Court had erred in passing the impugned order of demolition without granting any opportunity to the appellants to have their say in the writ petition or in the application for grant of interim relief. According to Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, there has been a breach of fair play in action inasmuch as adverse interim orders have been made by the High Court without hearing the affected parties. On 11th July, 2000, the following order was made by this Court:

8. Counter and rejoinder have been filed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the fact situation that writ petition is still pending disposal in the High Court, it appears appropriate to us, in the interest of justice and to see that there is due compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice, to make the following potion of the direction issued by us on 11th July, 2000 absolute:

9. We further direct that the above direction shall continue in operation in the High Court during the pendency of the writ petition. Impleaded respondent Nos. 19-40 (appellants herein) shall be granted an opportunity by the High Court to file their counters and response to the application for interim relief as well. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, it shall be open to the High Court to pass fresh orders on the interim application and while doing so it shall not feel itself inhibited by our making interim direction dated 11th July, 2000 (supra) absolute.

10. We request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.

11. Nothing said hereinabove shall, however, be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy, raised in the writ petition. We wish to further clarify that to the extent that the High Court had directed stay of further construction at Survey No.1 Vijayashreepura, Mysore Kasaba, we do not interfere with that direction. It shall continue to remain in operation unless modified by the High Court, after hearing the parties.

12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

13. No costs.

14. In view of our orders made in Civil Appeal No. of 2001 arising out of SLP(C) No. 8375 of 2000 we permit the petitioners herein to file appropriate application in the High Court where Writ Petition No. 23429 of 1998 is pending for seeking proper relief.

15. The special leave petition is disposed of.

.