RAVI RAO GAIKWAD Vs. RAJAJINAGAR YOUTH SOCIA WELFARE ASSOCN
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on May 03,2006

RAVI RAO GAIKWAD Appellant
VERSUS
RAJAJINAGAR YOUTH SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

OM PRAKASH SON OF SHRI RADHEY VS. GIRRAJ, SON OF SHRI HARI KISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-3-331] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPURA TRUCK OWNERS SYNDICATE VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MEGHALAYA BOARD OF WAKF SHILLONG VS. KISHAN CHANDRA BAHARWANI [LAWS(GAU)-2010-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
TANDON BROTHER VS. RAJESH PANDEY [LAWS(CAL)-2007-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
KOYALEE VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NANDAN SINGH VS. AG OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO OP HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-21] [DISTINGUISHED ON]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VS. MANGALI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA VS. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2019-6-310] [REFERRED TO]
SIYARAM SHARMA & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-168] [REFERRED]
JAGAT SINGH VS. ADHISHASI ABHIYANTA SICHAI KHAND KARYASHALA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-6-34] [REFERRED TO]
TANDON BROTHERS VS. RAJESH PANDEY AND ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2008-1-106] [REFERRED TO]
DANDA NAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2007-7-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)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.
(2.)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 writ petitions not to interfere in their business relating to video games.
(3.)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 dismissed. 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 Division Bench inter alia directed as follows :
"It is open to the intervenor to participate in the case."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.