Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1491 (KAR)

Seven Star Group v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-24

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2020
JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned communication dated 09.10.2019 bearing No.PCB/RO (BGV-1)/SR/2019-20/1545 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-E and writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to conduct spot inspection of the petitioner-factory by issuing at least three days prior notice and also writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to invoke only plenary powers as described in Air and Water Act and Rules and Regulations therein and not to invoke any of the provisions of law, which are not within their jurisdiction/authority. 2. The brief facts of the top noted writ petition are as under: Petitioner is a partner of M/s Seven Star Group which is engaged in cold storage business. The case of the petitioner is that, it is carrying out business through lawful means by abiding rules and regulations prescribed by the authority. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that, respondent No.2 contrary to law is interfering with the functions of the petitioner-factory on the basis of vague complaints made by vested interests. 3. Petitioner at para 4 of the writ petition has taken a contention that, respondent No.2 through order dated 14.05.2018 has ordered for closure of the petitionerfactory. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that respondent No.2 has invoked the provisions of law which are not applicable to the petitioner-factory. Hence, the petitioner sought for revocation of the closure order which is placed on record in the present writ petition as per Annexure-B. Copy of the application submitted by the petitioner seeking revocation of closure order is also placed on record as per Annexure-D. Respondent No.5 has issued a reply to the said application as per Annexure-E calling upon the petitioner to furnish further details, to which, there is a reply by the petitioner herein and the same is produced before this Court as per Annexure-E1. 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 on receipt of notice issued by this Court filed statement of objections on 01.07.2020. At para 1 of the statement of objection, the contesting respondents have specifically contended that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and there is suppression of material fact before this Court. 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 on receipt of notice issued by this Court filed statement of objections on 01.07.2020. At para 1 of the statement of objection, the contesting respondents have specifically contended that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and there is suppression of material fact before this Court. The closure order as per Annexure-B to the writ petition is challenged by the petitioner before the Principal Bench in W.P.No.48489/2019 and the same is furnished along with statement of objection as per Annexure-R2. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have specifically contended that revocation sought by the petitioner is rightly examined by the respondents and endorsement is issued as per Annexure-E stating that, since the petitioner has not complied with the direction issued in the closure order, there cannot be any revocation. The contesting respondents have also specifically contended in the statement of objection that the present writ petition is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. At para 3 of statement of objection the contesting respondents have also brought to the notice of this Court that, petitioner has filed one more writ petition in W.P.No.145072/2020 in which identical reliefs are sought. Placing all these material facts, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have specifically contended at para 3 of the statement of objection that filing of multiple writ petitions on the same cause of action amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written argument on 14.07.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner at para 10 of the written arguments has submitted that single impugned order can be challenged before two writ Courts. In support of his written arguments, petitioner has placed on record copy of writ petition in W.P.No.102915/2018 and also orders passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. The documents produced by the petitioner along with written arguments in no way offers an explanation as to how the petitioner having challenged closure order which is produced before this Court as per Annexure-B before Principal Bench in W.P.No.48489/2019 could have filed the present writ petition without disclosing filing of writ petition before the Principal Bench questioning closure order. There is a material suppression by the petitioner before this Court. There is a material suppression by the petitioner before this Court. I am of the view that petitioner has no cause of action to file the present writ petition when the closure order is challenged before Principal Bench. The petitioner by suppressing the pendency of the writ petition before the Principal Bench has sought for revocation of the closure order as per Annexure-D. In the said revocation application, the petitioner has deliberately not whispered about filing of the writ petition before the Principal Bench. 7. I am of the view that this revocation application was filed with an intent that the authorities would react to the application and issue some communication, so that it would enable the petitioner to fight one more round of litigation. That is precisely what the petitioner has done in the present case on hand. Challenging the endorsement issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-E, the present writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.5 and also mandamus to conduct spot inspection. I am unable to understand when there is a closure order and when the same is challenged before the Principal Bench, the petitioner cannot maintain writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct spot inspection. This is a case of abuse of process of Court. 8. The petitioner did not stop here. While addressing arguments, petitioner has specifically contended at para 10 of the written arguments that he can maintain two writ petitions on same cause of action. This contention at para 10 of the written arguments is in gross contempt and also reflects the conduct of the petitioner. Filing of the writ petition before the Principal Bench is suppressed. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri R.Sadagopan Vs Sri K.Rajaiah, (2010) 1 KCCR 759 (DB) has held that filing of multiple suits arising out of the same or individual or continuing causes of action, amount to abuse of process of Court and as such, the litigants are to be dealt by initiating contempt proceedings. 9. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed filing of the writ petition before the Principal Bench where closure order is challenged. 9. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed filing of the writ petition before the Principal Bench where closure order is challenged. Unless the closure order is set aside by the Principal Bench, the reliefs sought in the present writ petition cannot be considered and filing of the present writ petition on the same cause of action or it can be taken as continuing cause of action which is already ceased before the Principal Bench in W.P.No.48489/2019. 10. Since the closure order is questioned and pending before the Principal Bench in W.P.No.48489/2019, I am of the view that the present writ petition is not at all maintainable. The grounds urged and the reliefs sought cannot be entertained at this stage. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner by deliberately suppressing challenge to the closure order has filed the present writ petition. Though this is a fit case to impose exemplary cost, this Court taking a lenient view would only confine to the merits of the case. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.