Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4449-4505 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Ravi Rao Gaikwad and Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Rajajinagar Youth Social Welfare Asson. and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/05/2006
BENCH:
Arijit Pasayat & Tarun Chatterjee
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in these appeals is to the common Judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court permitting the respondent No.1 to
participate in the proceedings before learned Single Judge, pursuant to the
order of remand passed.
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
Several writ petitions were filed by the appellants praying for a
declaration that the writ petitioners shall be deemed to have been granted
licenses for carrying on business in video games at premises in question
and for appropriate direction to the respondents in the wirt petitions not
to interfere in their business relating to video games.
Learned Single Judge held that in the fact situation it shall be deemed
that licenses have been granted. Under the provisions of Licensing and
Controlling of Place of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 (in
short the ‘Order’). Stand of the appellants was that they had filed
applications which were not considered within the time prescribed under sub
clause (7) of Clause 4 of the Order and hence it shall be deemed that
licences have been granted in terms of sub clause (8) of Clause 4. It is to
be noted that a petition styled as "Public Interest Litigation" had been
filed by respondent No. 1 which was dimissed. In the writ petitions filed,
the respondent No.1 filed application to be impleaded as an intervenor. No
order accepting the prayer had been passed. The State of Karnataka as well
as respondent No.1 filed Writ Appeals which were disposed of by the
impugned judgments. The High Court held that certain documents were placed
before it to show that orders had in fact been passed. Therefore the matter
was remitted to learned Single Judge to consider the effect of such claim.
While giving this direction the Dvision Bench inter alia directed as
follows:
"It is open to the intervenor to participate in the case."
Challenge in these appeals is to the aforesaid quoted portion of the
judgment passed by the Division Bench. It is submitted that the respondent
No. 1 had failed in their attempt to cause problems so far as the
appellants are concerned and the petition (writ petition No. 2869/97) filed
by it was dismissed. Application for being impleaded as intervener was also
rejected and, therefore, the High Court could not have permitted it to
participate before learned Single Judge. The bonafides of respondent No. 1
are doubtful. The question which is to be adjudicated by learned Single
judge is whether the claim of the appellants regarding deemed license is
acceptable or stand of the official respondents to the effect that orders
have in fact been passed and, therefore, there is no deemed license is
correct. The question has to be decided on the basis of the materials to be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
placed by the official respondents and the respondent No. 1 have no role to
play in the matter.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that no prejudice
is caused to the appellants if permission granted by the High Court to the
respondent No. 1 to participate is carried out.
In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Haryana, Rohtak, [1993] 3 SCC 141 a three - Judge Bench observed that the
only purpose of granting an application for intervetion is to entitle the
intervener to address argument in support of one or the other side. In
State of T.N. and Anr. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras, [1994] 4
SCC 630.
In the present case undisputedly the writ petition filed by the respondent
No.1 was dismissed. Additionally its prayer for intervention in the writ
petitions was not accepted. As the impugned order of the Division Bench
goes to show, learned Single Judge has been directed to consider the effect
of certain orders which were placed for consideration by the official
respondents. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants,
the question whether there was deemed grant of license has to be considered
on the basis of materials to be placed by the appellants and the official
respondents. The respondent No.1 cannot throw any light on this issue.
Therefore, the Division Bench was not justified in permitting respondent
No.1 to particiapte in the proceedings before learned Single Judge. That
part of the directions is set aside. The appeals are allowed to the above
said extent. No costs.