AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant -writ petitioner to implead the fifth to eighth respondents herein as party
respondents in the writ petition filed by the appellant. The fifth to eighth respondents filed Writ Petition Nos.47781-47784/2017. The prayer in the said
writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was to direct the respondents State of Karnataka and others to take action of closure of
illegal industries run by the fourteenth to sixteenth respondents in the said writ petitions. The present appellant was the fifteenth respondent in the said
writ petitions. The said writ petitions preferred by the fifth to eighth respondents were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated
10th January 2018 by recording the statement made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the grievance of the fifth to eighth
respondents herein (writ petitioners in the said writ petitions) will be examined and appropriate action will be taken by the Karnataka State Coastal
Zone Management Authority (for short ‘KSCZMA’) within a period of six weeks from the said date.
On the basis of the said assurance given that an order dated 15th March 2018 was passed by the KSCZMA directing demolition of a portion of fish
processing unit of the appellant which is constructed within 100 mts. from the HTL of Udyavara river. By filing a writ petition, the present appellant
has challenged the said action of the KSCZMA.
As the action impugned in the writ petition filed by the appellant was taken on the basis of an order made in the writ petitions filed by the fifth to
eighth respondents, the said respondents applied for impleadment and by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the
application for impleadment. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge observed that the fifth to eighth respondents had initiated the proceedings
against the appellant by way of writ petitions in which the aforesaid order dated 10th January 2018 was passed. The learned Single Judge proceeded
to observe that the said respondents are vitally interested in the result of the litigation and being the residents of the area, they have a right to pollution
free environment.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment firstly by pointing out that though the learned Single Judge in
the impugned order has referred to two decisions of the Apex Court and one decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon by the
appellant, he has not considered the law laid down therein. He submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have dealt with the law laid down in
the said decisions. He submitted that the approach of the learned Single Judge is erroneous inasmuch as only because the rights of the persons are
likely to be affected, such persons do not become necessary and/or proper parties. He invited our attention to the decision of this Court in the case of
SRI M. NARAYANA AND ANOTHER vs SMT. RAMAKKA AND OTHERS ILR 2016 KAR 2979 on the concept of necessary and/or proper
party. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS vs HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS
(1995) 6 SCC 50.
Lastly, he invited our attention to an order of temporary injunction dated 23rd February 2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Udupi in the suit filed by the appellant against the fifth to eighth respondents. He invited our attention to the findings recorded therein and the order of
injunction passed therein. The relevant part of the order of injunction reads thus:
“Consequently, interim injunction is issued against the defendants from publishing, circulating, distributing or making any representations to anyone
including the Authorities that the plaintiff company is manufacturing or running its business without license, permission or sanction from the Authorities
including the Deputy Commissioner, Thasilder, Pollution Control Board or any other Authority till disposal of the suit.
However it is made clear that the Government is at liberty to examine the legality of the business conducted by the plaintiff as per the mandate issued
by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.47781-47784/2017. This interim order will not come in the way of the Authorities concerned to
initiate proper action in case of breach of terms and conditions.â€
He would submit that in the light of the prima facie findings recorded and injunction granted against the fifth to eighth respondents, the legality of the
impugned order will have to be tested.
We have considered the submissions. Firstly, we must note here that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order on the interim
application seeking impleadment of the fifth to eighth respondents in a pending writ petition by which writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is invoked. The writ jurisdiction was invoked for challenging the order of demolition of a portion of the fish processing unit of the
appellant passed by the KSCZMA. There is material on record to show that the order was passed by the KSCZMA in compliance of the statement of
the State Government recorded in the order dated 10th January 2018 passed in the earlier writ petitions filed by the fifth to eighth respondents wherein
a writ of mandamus was prayed for against the concerned respondents enjoining them to order closure of the industries of the appellant and two
others. That is how the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has observed that the action which is subject matter of challenge in the writ
petition filed by the appellant has been taken on the basis of the order passed in the writ petitions filed by the fifth to eighth respondents. The material
observations of the learned Single Judge read thus:
“Admittedly, the proposed respondents are the residents of the area and have a right to pollution free environment. The proposed respondent had
initiated the proceeding against the petitioner in which an order was passed by Division Bench of this Court on 10.01.2018. Therefore, the proposed
respondents are vitally interested in the result of the litigation as their right may be affected. In order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation the petitioners
who are the residents of the area are proper parties to the lis. Accordingly, I.A.1/18 is allowed. Let the cause title be amended.â€
(emphasis added)
Perusal of the order of temporary injunction granted by the Civil Court against the fifth to eighth respondents shows that obviously, the same does
not prohibit the said respondents from initiating proceedings before the Court of law. On the contrary, in the said order, a rider is added by the learned
Civil Judge that the order would not prevent the State Government from taking action in terms of the mandate issued in the writ petitions filed by the
fifth to eighth respondents and his order will not prevent the authorities from taking any action. We do not think that the said order of temporary
injunction has any bearing on the legality of the impugned order.
Now we turn to the argument regarding non-consideration of the decisions which are quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
The learned Single Judge was dealing with an interim application for impleadment. The decisions which are quoted in the order which were relied
upon by the appellant lay down the very well settled principles on the question of deciding whether a party is a necessary or proper party. We are not
willing to accept the submission that the learned Single Judge was not even aware about the well settled law laid down in the said decisions. The very
fact that the learned Single Judge has referred to the said decisions shows that he had considered the said decisions. The argument of the appellant
cannot be accepted for the simple reason that we are dealing with an order made on the interim application by a learned Single Judge of this Court
who was exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not prepared to accept the argument that the learned Single
Judge was not conscious of the very well settled proposition of law which is reiterated in the said three decisions.
In our view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is purely a discretionary order which takes into consideration that the action which is
challenged in the writ petition has been initiated on the basis of the order passed in the writ petitions filed by the fifth to eighth respondents. Therefore,
in our view, this is not a fit case to interfere in appeal. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. We, however, make it
clear that the observations made by us in this order will not affect the enforceability of the order of temporary injunction dated 23rd February 2019, if
it continues to be in force.
The pending interlocutory applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.